 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Amnesty HearingsType AMNESTY HEARINGS Location JOHANNESBURG : 21 OCTOBER TO 1 NOVEMBER 1996 Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +ntuli +sam Line 3809Line 3813Line 3858Line 3860Line 3869Line 3887Line 3981Line 3982Line 3988Line 3993Line 4003Line 4006Line 4009Line 4015Line 4018Line 4025Line 4041Line 4046Line 4047Line 4054Line 4055Line 4065Line 4072Line 4081Line 4097Line 4103Line 4128Line 4130Line 4134Line 4137Line 4142Line 4146Line 4149Line 4151Line 4194Line 4234Line 4235Line 4236Line 4241Line 4252Line 4254Line 4255Line 4258Line 4263Line 4272Line 4276Line 4285Line 4287Line 4341Line 4351Line 4359Line 4361Line 4364Line 4381Line 4385Line 4387Line 4394Line 4411Line 4419Line 4441Line 4452Line 4454Line 4491Line 4492Line 4495Line 4499Line 4500Line 4505Line 4506Line 4507Line 4510Line 4542Line 4544Line 4550Line 4553Line 4562Line 4582Line 4585Line 4586Line 4606Line 4619Line 4627Line 4630 MR DU PLESSIS: ...sight of the regulations. MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, the regulations, the Commission's regulations. MR DU PLESSIS: Yes what I have is I have a copy of theguidelines in respect of procedure. As far as the regulationsin terms of the Act are concerned I was given the indication bythe people we dealt with at the Truth Commission that the regulationshave not been published, specific regulations under the Act havenot been published yet. So I am not aware of any regulationswhich have been lawfully published. JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe can you tell us about this? MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I am not aware of the regulationsto the Act being promulgated here. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman as far as ...(indistinct) representationis concerned it is included in the Act, I think section 34 thereofmakes mention of that, but I am not aware of the regulations,but section 34 makes room for the last thing that the Chair hasjust indicated. ADV DE JAGER: The regulations have been published asfar as the prescribed form is concerned and the annexure of thenature of the notice is prescribed in form 2 in the same regulations. That is as far as notice is concerned to applicants and to peopleinterested and families and victims. I think the HRV Committeewas in the process of promulgating regulations in connectionsof section 29 hearings and that was where subpoenas were dealt with. So ifyou can investigate whether there is a prescribed form of thesubpoena and what that would prescribed, it's not in the Act. There's not an inscription in the Act, it's only authorisingus to promulgate the regulations but I don't know whether theyhave promulgated the regulations in connection with subpoenas. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman inasfar as I concur with the memberof the Committee just about the regulations, but inasfar as thequestion of the subpoenas concerned in terms of Section 29 thespecifications are mentioned in Section 29 itself to the effectthat it has got to be in this form, it has got to be signed byyour Commissioner and the form must indicate the time and placewhere this person must appear. Now what I am trying to say isinasfar as a subpoena is concerned we do not have a problem, theTRC has got a policy on that. And that is the same policy thatI used when we subpoenaed General van der Merwe. A subpoena canbe issued, we have a policy and we've got a legal opinion on thataspect. That one is clarified. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I may mention that I am inpossession of a copy of the subpoena utilised by the Truth andReconciliation Commission. I have read through it now. It doesn'trefer to the Criminal Procedure Act, it doesn't refer to the regulationsand it doesn't make provision for any time period. It is justa subpoena requesting or ordering the person to come and giveevidence or to answer questions relevant to the applications ata hearing. I wasn't under the impression, apart from the formthat has been promulgated that any other regulations have beenpromulgated. So the way I read it is that the Commission can act in terms of Section 29 and subpoena anybody in respectof the holding of a hearing by notice in writing to appear beforethe Commission and to give evidence or to answer questions relevantto the subject matter of the hearing. And that is why I directthat request. JUDGE WILSON: As I understand your request in respectof these two persons would be to give evidence relating to andrelevant to the Pepco 3, to be limited to that? MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for a few minutes to considerthe application. If any other parties have any requests theycan notify us. JUDGE WILSON: We direct that notice in writing in termsof Section 29(1)(c) of Act 34 of 1995, the Promotion of NationalUnity and Reconciliation Act be given to Mr Sakkie van Zyl, MrDion Nieuwoudt, Mr Gert Besselaar and Mr Winter who was stationcommander at Cradock in 1985, these being the persons referredto in the evidence yesterday of Colonel Venter, that they arecalled upon to appear before the Commission on Monday the 28thof October to give evidence in connection with the Pepco 3 at09H30 at this venue. We further direct that the notice is to draw their attentionto the fact, in terms of Section 30 of the Act, that they havebeen implicated by the evidence led before this hearing, serviceof such notice to be effected tomorrow at the latest. MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: There is nothing further to deal with inthat connection. We now adjourn this hearing of all these matters till 09H30 on Monday morning. We are not certain as yetof the precise venue but it will be in all probability somewherein this building. Notices will be available on Monday morning. MR MPSHE:: (MR MPSHE'S MICROPHONE NON-FUNCTIONAL) CHAIRMAN:: The interpreters are unavailable. JUDGE WILSON:: We were told that he was on his way hereand that he would be here by 11 o'clock I think was the time. MR :: Mr Chairman can I cut in here that is correct,Mr Nieuwoudt's attorney phoned us on Friday and they said thatthey would be coming and they would only be able to be here by11 because they could not get a flight earlier but they wouldbe here. That is what they told us on Friday. MR MPSHE:: (Inaudible no microphone). CHAIRMAN:: Please hand it in. Yes, would you pleaseplace yourself on record? MR DE VILLIERS:: The name is Wium De Villiers and theinstructing attorney is Mr Viaan Roux and we..... MR DE VILLIERS:: My name is Wium De Villiers I am fromthe Pretoria Bar and my instructing attorney is Mr Viaan Rouxand we represent Mr Van Zyl. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Beselaar, is he represented? CHAIRMAN:: Mr Beselaar would you please stand, are younot legally represented. MR :: (Inaudible, no microphone). CHAIRMAN:: Is the position that he is prepared, shouldit be decided that these proceedings carry on, is he raising nodifficulties about short notice? MR :: Mr Chairman he is prepared to givehis CHAIRMAN:: Mr Winter you have no difficulty of the shortnotice that was given to you? MR WINTER:: Mr Chairman may I just mention that I haven'tbeen....[interjection in Afrikaans]....(reply inaudible). CHAIRMAN:: Can you indicate what your attitude is? MR WINTER:: I beg your pardon sir? CHAIRMAN:: What is your attitude to this hearing and togiving evidence? MR WINTER:: Sir I have a slight problem which I discussedwith Mr Mpshe and I wouldn't like to make it public here but Iam of the mind that I am willing to stand for whatever would beasked of me. MR MPSHE:: ...it is due to the fact that the subpoenawas sent to Port Elizabeth on Wednesday Mr Chairman and it was(inaudible - microphone not switched on)... CHAIRMAN:: In the light of the information that thereis a likelihood of Mr Nieuwoudt and/or his legal representativeturning up this morning at about 11 o'clock, it might be prudentto take no further decisions on what should happen in connectionwith the proceedings in which they are required to give evidence. If it does not inconvenience Mr De Villiers, can you Mr De Villiersmake yourself available a little later in the day when we canascertain whether Mr Nieuwoudt is represented? MR DE VILLIERS:: Mr Chairman I suppose we will still behere at 11 o'clock but we would also apply for a postponementof our client's testimony on the same basis that we did not haveenough time to prepare and also to obtain information of the testimony and so forth, and then to apply to the Committee to give the testimony at a later stage. We would also apply with Mr Nieuwoudt it seems for a postponement. CHAIRMAN:: Yes I think it would be appropriate for usto consider this application, your application for postponement,your application for postponement, in conjunction with Mr Nieuwoudt'sapplication. MR DE VILLIERS:: As the Committee pleases. CHAIRMAN:: Mr De Villiers do you possibly have the addressor telephone number of Mr Nieuwoudt's attorney? MR DE VILLIERS:: We do have his telephone number whichwe can make available to the Committee. CHAIRMAN:: We will ask one of the secretaries to assistyou in this regard, could we phone and determine whether he hasin fact left and is on his way here or what the state of affairsmight be? MR DE VILLIERS:: We will do so. CHAIRMAN:: Will the evidence be led into the incidentwhich has been described at the Pepco 3, is something which wewill turn to a little later when Mr Nieuwoudt's representativeis here. That being so Mr Mpshe, can we proceed to some otheraspect of the hearing? MR :: (Inaudible no microphone)...have madeapplication for amnesty in the (inaudible) matter, that is W/O Van Vuuren and Captain Van Vuuren...(inaudible)...as witness.....(inaudible). As I understood from our discussion in chambers Mr Chairmanand please if I am not correct then I would like (rest of addressinaudible). MR DU PLESSIS 242 J J VAN VUUREN MR (?):: The interpreters are unable to providethe service since the current mike is not available to the soundsystem. The English interpreting service will not be availablesince the current mike is not accessible to the interpreters. It is now available, would you please start? JOHANNES JACOBUS VAN VUUREN (ss) QUESTION:: Would you please start by explaining exactlyhow you were approached with regard to this particular instruction? ANSWER:: Should I begin with my story? QUESTION:: Yes you may and I'm going to ask you particularquestions. ANSWER:: Captain Hechter and myself co-operated, we wereattached to the Security Branch, Pretoria, Northern Transvaal. Captain Hechter informed me that myself, him and Mamasela aswell as Col Flip Loots had to eliminate Gerry Thibedi as he hadbeen identified as an ANC activist. QUESTION:: Could you stop there Mr Van Vuuren. Couldyou give us reasons or would you know why Col Loots gave you thisinstruction? ANSWER:: I can remember vaguely that Mr Thibedi was ahigh profile activist involved with consumer boycotts where peoplehad to eat cooking oil and raw chickens and that this incitedthe youth to become involved in arson etc., that's vaguely whatI remember. QUESTION:: Who exactly made the decision to eliminateThibedi? ANSWER:: I would believe that this was a general decisionby General Victor which he communicated to Captain Hechter. QUESTION:: Fine, where did you obtain the informationwith MR DU PLESSIS 243 J J VAN VUUREN regard to the exact address of Thibedi? ANSWER:: If I remember correctly Col Flip Loots providedus with this address as well as the related information. QUESTION:: What kind of place was this? ANSWER:: If I understood it correctly it was a kind ofsafehouse or a hiding place of Mr Thibedi's. QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren, was there information with regardto anyone else who might have been in this house, available toyou? ANSWER:: Not as far as I can remember. QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren had there been any attempts byyourself and Captain Hechter to obtain additional informationwith regard to Mr Thibedi, was it necessary under those circumstances? ANSWER:: No it was unnecessary. QUESTION:: Could you continue then reading at the secondparagraph? "The operation was under the instructions of Col Lootswho said that he had discussed the matter with Brigadier Cronje. Myself, Captain Hechter, Col Loots and Mamasela then startedplanning. Hechter and myself put together an explosive devicewhile Mamasela was in the office with us, this was in my and Hechter'soffice." QUESTION:: Could you stop there please. What kind ofexplosive device would this have been? ANSWER:: If I remember correctly it would have been acoffee tin which we filled with bentolite(?) explosives. MR DU PLESSIS 244 J J VAN VUUREN "We then drove with the Security Branch minibus to Thibedi'shome which was somewhere in Bophutatswana or north of SoshunguweI cannot remember exactly where. About a kilometre from thehouse, we stopped, Loots was the driver at that time, while Icannot remember it might be possible that Danny Glehlale or HendrikMakaba might have been present...." QUESTION:: Could you stop there. Is Danny Glehlale,is there another name for this person? ANSWER:: He was also referred to as "slang"or "snake". QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren who else were in this vehicleat that time? ANSWER:: As far as I can remember it was myself, Sgt Mamasela,Col Loots and Captain Hechter. QUESTION:: Of course it is possible that Glehlale or Makabamight have been present but you cannot remember? QUESTION:: How were you dressed? ANSWER:: Normally I wore a denim slacks and a jacket andwe had gloves on as well as masks. QUESTION:: In what way were you armed? ANSWER:: We had AK-47 rifles, Mamasela, myself and CaptainHechter carried the explosive device. QUESTION:: When you left was this in the day or the nighttime? ANSWER:: It was in the night, during the night. QUESTION:: Why would you have been armed with AK-47 rifles? ANSWER:: These were arms of communist origin and if itwas necessary for us to shoot someone then they couldn't indicatethat it could have been us. MR DU PLESSIS 245 J J VAN VUUREN QUESTION:: Could you continue? "Hechter, myself and Mamasela then continued on foot whileLoots stayed in the vehicle. Mamasela indicated the vehicleto us. We had our faces hidden and I was carrying an AK-47. Hechter carried the bomb. I broke the window and Hechter threwthe bomb into the house." QUESTION:: Can you remember what kind of room you wouldhave shot the, or broken the window of? ANSWER:: No I cannot remember. QUESTION:: What kind of house would it have been? ANSWER:: It was a sort of a zinc house. QUESTION:: What would the size of the house have beenroughly? ANSWER:: It's difficult to remember, maybe 5 x 5 or 5x 8 metres, I cannot remember exactly. QUESTION:: Did you know whether there was anyone presentin the house? ANSWER:: I thought that Mr Thibedi was in the house. QUESTION:: Why did you think so? ANSWER:: Because his vehicle was parked close to the house. QUESTION:: Did you take any other further steps beforebreaking the window and throwing the bomb into the house, didyou do anything else? QUESTION:: Could you continue? "We ran back to the kombi, the bomb took about five to10 seconds to explode. About 50-100 metres from the house thebomb exploded. Our MR DU PLESSIS 246 J J VAN VUUREN information was that Mr Thibedi was involved as an ANC activistwith cases where people were forced to eat raw products purchasedat shops and to drink such products and that inspired people tocommit arson, intimidate people and make petrol bombs. It wasnecessary to eliminate Thibedi because he created a lot of problemsand because he was also involved with Cosatu and was second-in-commandto Donsie(?) Kumalo in this area." QUESTION:: Was there a report after this incident? QUESTION:: Would there normally have been a report ofsuch an event? QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren, under whose direct command didyou act? ANSWER:: I acted under Col Flip Loots' direct command. QUESTION:: Do you know whether Thibedi was injured? ANSWER:: No I think he was injured. QUESTION:: Could you page to page 147 of the application. General motivation in respect of eliminations which evidencewas already given by Brigadier Cronje is contained herein, I'mnot going to ask the witness to repeat that evidence because BrigadierCronje gave it on behalf of all the applicants. I will, however,refer to the further motivations and reasons for this being apolitical act which are set out on page 152. Kindly page topage 151 and we will begin at the bottom, could you read thisto us starting from the bottom paragraph? "All of the abovementioned led to the fact that MR DU PLESSIS 247 J J VAN VUUREN the National Party remained in government and communism wassuccessfully countered. The purpose of this action was to actagainst the ANC and other liberation movements with a revolutionaryonslaught against the apartheid government to destabilise andpersuade them. The motive of the act was to counter terrorismand to protect the country. A further motive was to eliminatethe activists so that further actions against the State and thepublic could not be perpetrated. The context against which thishappened was against the background of an emergency situationin the country, as well as the continuing violence, intimidationsand unrest. The liberation movements attempted to make the countryungovernable at this stage as part of their political rebellion. The legal nature of the act and the facts of the act is apparentfrom the nature and particulars of the act, as mentioned. Thepurpose and goal was to intimidate or eliminate an ANC activist,supporter or terrorist. The action against Thibedi was carriedout under the instructions as mentioned above. The purpose wasnecessary to eliminate an ANC terrorist, activist or supporterwhich was necessary in view of the struggle, and the securitysituation in the country. Actions against activists, as faras I know, had under most circumstances been successful. Stepstaken against activists would therefore have been successful incountering the intimidation and MR DU PLESSIS 248 J J VAN VUUREN attempts to make the country ungovernable by the ANC and otherliberation movements. Actions against him was comparable tohis actions against innocent black people, this was a war situation." NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: Mr Curran are you interested in this aspectof the matter? MR CURRAN:: (Inaudible, no microphone). MR DE JAGER(?):: Mr Venter(?), Colonel Loots where ishe at this moment? QUESTION:: My apologies Mr Van Vuuren, Colonel Loots wasthe unit commander of Unit B, do you know where he is presently? ANSWER:: Yes he is in this hall at this moment. QUESTION:: Is he present here? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE(?) QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren you saw the house that you bombed,not so? QUESTION:: Did you know how many rooms were in that house? QUESTION:: ...were to find Mr Thibedi, inside the housethat is? QUESTION:: How many bombs all in all did you have? QUESTION:: What was the ingredients of the bomb that youmanufactured? ANSWER:: I am not an explosive expert but I can attemptto explain. Normally such a bomb would have consisted of a coffeetin which was then filled with bentolite, this was then sealedand you would then have had a five second firing device. QUESTION:: ...it has or it will be capable of destroyingthe house completely? ANSWER:: Please repeat the question. QUESTION:: When making this bomb... MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I please just requestthere are headphones in which the translation will be in Afrikaans,I think the witness just forgot to put the headphones on. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: When making this bomb or manufacturing thisbomb, did you manufacture it with the intention of it being capableof destroying the house completely? ANSWER:: Yes it was intended to destroy the house. QUESTION:: ...also include the people therein? ANSWER:: Yes all of the people who at that moment wouldhave been inside the house, yes. QUESTION:: ...your main target was Mr Thibedi himselfand not the other inhabitants, your main target was Mr Thibediand not other occupants of the house? QUESTION:: Before throwing the bomb did you take painsto establish exactly where Mr Thibedi was at that particular moment? ANSWER:: I can only explain, I can only explain that ourinformation had been that Mr Thibedi's, his was Mr Thibedi's safehouse and that he would have been the only person in this house,he would have been the only person hiding in this house. I was not aware of any other persons. QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren you knew that this house wasoccupied by Mr Thibedi and his family, not so? ANSWER:: No I did not know that his family was there,our information was...(end of side 1)...at that time. QUESTION:: ...the fourth paragraph, in the last sentenceyou state that "I was informed that while running W/O Van Vuuren lookedback..." ANSWER:: You're at a different incident now. MR ?:: Is this not Van Vuuren? QUESTION:: Did you see what happened to the house yourself? QUESTION:: ...does it take you so long just to say "nee"? ANSWER:: I'm trying to recall the events in my mind, itwas 10 years ago, a long time has passed. Captain Hechter threwthe bomb I stood next to him and I broke the window. QUESTION:: ...as to what happened after the bombing? ANSWER:: No we never went back, we never attempted todetermine what had happened. QUESTION:: ...Van Vuuren that after every operation thereis a report that has to be made to the order givers or to theauthorities, is it not so? QUESTION:: ...report to them as to the operation? ANSWER:: No my direct head was present at that time. QUESTION:: ...operation have to meet as people who wereinvolved and discuss the issue as to what report is to be givento the higher authorities, if any? ANSWER:: Captain Loots was present, pardon Colonel Loots was present that evening, he knew exactly what happened, I leftit at that. QUESTION:: ...thereafter at all? ANSWER:: No I also told no one else about this subsequently. QUESTION:: It was a war situation? QUESTION:: ...with particular references to Thibedi'sissue? ANSWER:: The entire operation took place against the backgroundof a general state of emergency in the country. Anarchy reignedor ruled in the country and the country was on fire, the countrywas burning. This was the only possible and effective actionagainst trained activists and terrorists. We could not arrestthis person since there was no appropriate evidence against thisperson, this was a people's war and struggle, no one was willingto give testimony in court because they were scared they wouldbe killed the next day. It was a very clandestine action whichwe took to counteract the efforts of the ANC. QUESTION:: This was a war situation, would you say itwas a conventional war or a non-conventional war? ANSWER:: I would say that this was non-conventional, unconventionalwarfare. JUDGE WILSON:: Mr Van Vuuren, you have told us that youthought Mr Thibedi was in the house because his car was parkedoutside, is that so? QUESTION:: How did you recognise his car? ANSWER:: Sergeant Mamasela told us that this was his vehicleand that this was the vehicle in which he drove. QUESTION:: So you didn't know, you were merely told? QUESTION:: Did you say that you were told that this wasThibedi's so-called "safe-house"? ANSWER:: That was in the reports of the informants andit appeared that this was Mr Thibedi's safe-house from these reports. QUESTION:: ...to where he otherwise lived? QUESTION:: ...bombing that house on the basis that itwas a safe-house? QUESTION:: What did you understand a safe-house to be? ANSWER:: It would be a place where activists or terroristswould gather, would meet or hide. QUESTION:: ...terrorists coming together or hiding inthat house? ANSWER:: No I did not think that any terrorists wouldmeet there, I knew that this was Mr Thibedi's safe-house. Idid not think that this was a place where terrorists would hide,I knew that this was the safe-house of the high profile activistssuch as Mr Thibedi. QUESTION:: ...car, obviously it was outside the garageotherwise you couldn't have seen it? ANSWER:: Yes we saw the vehicle outside the building,outside the house. QUESTION:: ...for anybody to see it? ANSWER:: Yes it was quite obviously visible. QUESTION:: ...was staying in that house on the basis ofit being a so-called safe-house would have parked his car so conspicuouslyoutside there? ANSWER:: I can only explain this to you in this way thatit was difficult to track down these people, I cannot explain whetherthis was Mr Thibedi's vehicle, but it was the vehicle in whichhe drove around, Mr Mamasela identified the vehicle as being thevehicle in which Mr Thibedi drove around. I do not know whetherthis was his property this vehicle. QUESTION:: ...information on which you acted, you actedon the basis of a number of some information, firstly that hewas in that house and secondly that that house was to be a safe-houseand furthermore that that vehicle was his? QUESTION:: ...reconcile the description of the house,of that house as a safe-house with the fact that Mr Thibedi conspicuouslyparked his car outside, outside that particular house, which carhe obviously used publicly? ANSWER:: It was nighttime, I cannot say whether it wasobvious during the nighttime, one would at least have been about20 steps from the house to see the vehicle clearly. CHAIRMAN:: Was this man Thibedi known to you personally? CHAIRMAN:: You never had any dealings with him personally? CHAIRMAN:: ...description of his as a terrorist and atrouble-maker and so on, is that derived from some other source? ANSWER:: It was from informants reports, telephone listeningas well as postal information. CHAIRMAN:: Was that information gathered by you or conveyedto you by your superiors? ANSWER:: It was my colleagues who made this availableto me, I did not personally listen to Mr Thibedi, it was gained bymy colleagues. CHAIRMAN:: From whom did you receive information aboutthe activities of this man Thibedi? ANSWER:: I received this information from Colonel Loots,directly from Colonel Loots. MS KHAMPEPE:: Warrant Officer Van Vuuren why did you decideon the explosive device in order to eliminate the activist? ANSWER:: The bomb which we used had to, it's difficultto explain to you but it would, it had to appear as if it wasa consequence of the struggle, it was necessary that they couldnot indicate us as the responsibles, it had to appear as if MrThibedi was working with explosives and had explosives in hishouse. MS KHAMPEPE:: Who determined what methods were to be usedin the execution of orders received from your superiors? ANSWER:: This was largely our own decision which modusoperandi we were to follow and what we wanted to do. MS KHAMPEPE:: Were these modus operandi not clearedwith the person who would have given you instructions to executea particular order? CHAIRMAN:: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren, did Colonel Loots know whatyour normal procedure would have been with regard to an instructionsuch as this? ANSWER:: Yes he knew what modus operandi CaptainHechter and myself would have followed. QUESTION:: So Col Loots would he have been aware of thefact that you would have used a bombing attack rather than MR DU PLESSIS 255 J J VAN VUUREN ANSWER:: Yes he was aware of this. QUESTION:: With regard to the particular information whichyou received regarding Thibedi and his actions, you've given testimonythat this came from Col Loots, is that correct? QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren would there ever have been anydoubt in your mind with regard to the reasons given by Col Lootsfor this instruction? ANSWER:: Not ever, the security branch information alwayshad been very accurate and before any decision was made, thisinformation would have been verified against at least two or threeother informants' information. QUESTION:: Would Col Loots have given you an instructionto eliminate an activist who was not involved in serious actsof terror? QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren was it ever necessary for you,with regard to information provided to you by Col Loots, to confirmit? ANSWER:: No I was a subordinate, we never checked thisinformation or confirmed it, it would already have been verifiedand given to Col Loots in such a form. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON:: You were asked whether Col Loots knew whatmodus operandi you would employ, he was in fact at thescene on the night wasn't he? MR DE JAGER(?):: In your testimony you said that he alsoplanned this with you? ANSWER:: Yes he did plan it with us. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you very much. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leaveto call Captain Hechter on the same incident. CHAIRMAN:: Yes please do call him. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter before we continue with yourtestimony could you tell the Committee briefly what the problemswere which you are experiencing at this moment with your memory? ANSWER:: Mr Chair I have a large memory problem, a seriousmemory problem. I have received psychological evaluation, Ihave been informed that this is a voluntary loss of memory whichI am enforcing myself, they cannot find anything wrong with me. This particular incident with regard to Gerry Thibedi I cannotremember at all. I am, however, willing with regard to my colleaguesand to take responsibility for this act because they will nottell me lies. I fully believe what my colleagues have told meand I take responsibility for these acts. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter the contents of your application,where did you receive this information which is in your applicationwith regard to this particular incident? ANSWER:: To which page are you referring Mr Du Plessis? QUESTION:: Page 170 of the Hechter application, the informationin your application, from whom or how did you obtain this? ANSWER:: Chair this information as a whole was informedto me or was given to me by W/O Van Vuuren, I can only say whatis on paper here. If I were to expand on this I would lie] so what is on the paper here is what I can remember after I hadbeen informed by W/O Van Vuuren. I have no recollection of this incident. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter with regard to the politicalmotivation, with regard to these actions, you have heard the testimonyof Mr Van Vuuren in this regard. Would you agree with it? ANSWER:: That is correct Mr Chair. QUESTION:: Would you consider these motivations also tohave been your own in these actions? ANSWER:: I must say to the Commission that for two yearsI was actively involved in combatting terrorism and the combattingof activists. The purpose was broadly to combat communism, theANC/SACP alliance, broadly speaking. At that time during theyears 86/87, the ANC, as Mr P W Botha told us was involved ina total onslaught against the country and this onslaught wouldhave been against primarily civilians. The purpose would havebeen to intimidate civilians, to voluntarily but also under someintimidation act against the government of the day. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, with regard to eliminationof activists, could you explain to the Commission why it was consideredto be necessary under certain circumstances? ANSWER:: Yes Mr Chair, these activists were generally,at least those which we targeted for elimination, were generallythe stronger activists, the more intelligent activist, a personwho would have incited the youth to action of various other criminalacts, necklacing murders and then at the last moment he wouldhave stood back after having incited the youth to these actions. To arrest these persons subsequently would have been a wasteof time, I imagine that one of the persons that gave testimony that we didnot need further Nelson Mandela's, if this person would have been allowed out of jail this person would have become ahero to his community, which we could not have allowed at thattime. It would not have been proper at that time to create heroesin this manner. By eliminating such a person there would automaticallyhave been an effect on the civilians who, along with the militaryand police targets which we then in our own way we attempted todefend, by eliminating a person before he could act in certainways, we defended the civilian population. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, your information system wasit adequate for instance with regard to the case Thibedi to provideyou with information ahead of time that he would have forced peopleto eat raw eggs or raw food. Would you have been able to stopa person from acting in such a way or was that impossible? ANSWER:: Unfortunately not, since we were working withinformants who had to write a report which had to be gatheredat a central point, or which we had to obtain at a central point. This information we would only have obtained a day or so afterthe incident. We also worked with a number of informants andthe different reports had to be accumulated and transformed intoa central document which would then have told you what had happened. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter would it therefore have beenpossible at all to stop such a person prior to acting? ANSWER:: Unfortunately not Chair, we only obtained theinformation subsequent to the events, after the act was committedwe were only able to act against such a person. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter was there any other approach available to you in order to act against these activists and terroristswho committed serious acts of terror also against civilians? Would there have been other ways for you to prevent such a person? ANSWER:: No Chair, our security legislation only had atemporary effect, you could only remove a person for 180 daysmaximum out of the community. When he returned to the communityhe would then have been a hero of that community, you would havemade such a person into a martyr, you would have strengthenedthat person in that community. Under such circumstances werean activist was very strong it was necessary preferably to eliminatesuch a person. A good example is Mr Thibedi, look at his positionin the ANC today. The information available to us then wouldhave been correct, that he was a very strong activist. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter what would your view have beenwith regard to the question whether a war situation raged in thecountry at that time? ANSWER:: Thinking back to those years we would see thateven on television our then State President, President P W Bothasaid that we were in a state of war and that there would neverbe any negotiations with the ANC, that we would combat them withevery means possible. In our perceptions it was indeed a stateof war, admittedly unconventional as Mr Van Vuuren gave testimony,it was a completely unconventional war, but we were under circumstanceswhere violence in the most extreme form was used against us, someof my black colleagues in particular in Mamalodi were shot deadby activists, terrorists of the ANC. Also in Mamalodi in thearea where I worked, there was also a limpet mine planted whichtook one of our caspir vehicles out of action. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter as you remember, in your memory,would the acts of these activists and terrorists have been aimed solely against the South African police and military personnel,or also against civilians? ANSWER:: Certainly also civilians, many of these civilianswere also hurt in this conflict, many of them were informantsand as soon as the ANC determined that a particular person mighthave been an informant to the police, they would have eliminatedsuch a person, also by means of school boycotts, consumer boycotts,many of these civilians suffered unnecessarily. Unfortunatelythe ANC made no distinction when they took a consumer boycottagainst a person, they simply acted in a similar way against everyone. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter your actions as in the caseof Mr Thibedi where you were given instructions to eliminate sucha high profile activist or terrorist, would this have been partof a counter-revolutionary action on the part of the South Africanpolice against the onslaught of the ANC and other liberation movements? ANSWER:: At that time it was Government strategy, it wasa counter-insurgency or counter-revolutionary strategy which evenin the State Security Council would have been discussed. Itwas general knowledge that action would have been taken againstthese persons. QUESTION:: How do you know that this would have been discussedin the State Security Council? ANSWER:: That's the story that we were generally toldby our superiors that the State Security Council would have saidsomething, and that is simply the way in which the informationcame through to us, the staff on the ground. I was not present at any of those meetings but I'm sure that ifwe look at minutes we would find that such minutes would be available. QUESTION:: You also said that you are suffering a lossof memory, who is your doctor? ANSWER:: I was at a Dr J P Verster as well as at a clinicalpsychologist Dr Matthews who took a battery of tests on me. CHAIRMAN:: ... the loss of memory? ANSWER:: Chair it's difficult in 1988 I was in a seriouscar accident, immediately before that I went through a divorce. For a large part of my hospital stay I can remember nothing. With regard to certain of these incidents, with regard to whichI will also give testimony at a later stage in this application,I can remember parts. I was told that this is a very selectivesuppression of certain acts and he said that as far as he is concernedI..(end of side B)... JUDGE WILSON:: You also say in your application that afterthe bomb was thrown into the house you ran some 50-100 metresaway from the house before it exploded. Do you remember that? ANSWER:: Once again Mr Chair it was normal procedure,and this incident I can't remember this incident at all. JUDGE WILSON:: Mr Van Vuuren told you, I understood... ANSWER:: That's correct, according to what Mr Van Vuurentold me it must be correct. JUDGE WILSON:: The next thing you say is "I am informedthat as we ran, W/O Van Vuuren looked backwards and saw that thehouse was no longer standing". Was that also what Van Vuurentold you? QUESTION INAUDIBLE ONLY AFRIKAANS AUDIBLE ANSWER:: Mr Chair I noticed that that was the way in whichthe question was put, it must be wrong because Mr Van Vuuren testifiedthat it was a "safe-house" and your family definitelydoes not go with you to a safe-house. So that must be wrong. JUDGE WILSON:: This is what you told your attorneys whenthey were filling up the application form, are you suggestingthey wrote down something you didn't tell them? ANSWER:: (ANSWER IN AFRIKAANS) MS KHAMPEPE:: ...mainly of the things which happened atthe incident in question, is it possible for you to tell us whenthe Government decided that the emergency regulations were noteffective enough to counter the efficacy of the ANC and decidedto eliminate all activists? ANSWER:: Mr Chair it is very difficult to imagine howthe Government thought that up, what we received was the counter-revolutionarystrategical actions which we had to take and the words were "fightfire with fire". That meant that if a person really cameinto the spotlight as being an activist who caused problems, hehad to be eliminated. Where the true elimination assignmentcame from, I don't know and I will have to lie if I try to tellyou. MS KHAMPEPE:: Are you familiar with an institution calledtrevits? ANSWER:: I did hear about trevits but it was in main office,security main office, it was on a very secret level that trevitsexisted. I did know about its actions but its real aim and goalor sittings I never attended, I never attended any trevits meetings. MS KHAMPEPE:: To your knowledge was Mr Thibedi identified ANSWER:: No unfortunately I can't answer this question. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...to explain to us how information wasevaluated to assess its reliability in this case, in the instanceof Mr Thibedi? ANSWER:: I must explain the normal way of informationevaluation to you. We had various sources that were codifiedafter, according to the veracity of previous reports we had received. Before a person was selected for elimination we investigatedhis file and there must have been very bad actions and thingsin the file before such a decision was taken. There were alsovarious informants in the community who were given orders to investigatea specific target, to investigate him and to inform us about whathe was doing and then we received weekly reports. If the personwas very active, we even received more than one report per informantper week. This information was then worked into one documentfor easy reference purposes and when such a person was identified,or when it was decided to take action against him I can assureyou that it came from many various informants. CHAIRMAN: This would be a convenient stage to take ashort adjournment, we will resume in 15 minutes. COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION QUESTION:: (No question audible, two languages comingthrough at the same time). ANSWER:: Mr Chair I unfortunately can't give you an answerto that it has been lasting for quite some time now, I cannotremember large parts of my past but I'm afraid I can't answerthis question. I did go to a psychiatrist and they are busy compiling a report, I don't know if they can perhapsgive you an answer in a report. QUESTION:: All that is included in your application, yourevidence, is what was told to you by W/O Van Vuuren? QUESTION:: What do you think the effect will be if sayafter this hearing, after the application, you then regain yourmemory and remember perfectly well that you were not involvedin this matter at all. What do you think the effect thereofwill be? ANSWER:: I will certainly have nightmares but there isnothing one can do about that. The only thing I can do now isto speak the truth as far as possible and to cast myself to themercy of the Truth Commission. QUESTION:: Your application, you took an oath which yousigned, what was that oath for? ANSWER:: That I will speak the truth as far as it is possibleto my knowledge. I was told that I committed some deeds, mycolleagues would not lie to me, and therefore I accept that Itold the truth, that's why I took the oath. I am prepared tostand by that which I said. QUESTION:: Page 171 of your application, the HonourableCommittee member did ask you about that, I'm still going backto it, the fourth paragraph where you say "Ek is meegedeel dat in die.................. (Quote continues in Afrikaans, interpreter not translating intoEnglish). ANSWER:: Mr Van Vuuren told me this, it could be thathe referred to a different incident, there were many incidents. You saw my application and I unfortunately can't tell you anything else or give you a further explanation except that whichis in the application. QUESTION:: ...that if it is W/O Van Vuuren who conveyedthis to you he would have known about it and testified about ithimself? ANSWER:: I understand what you are asking and what youare aiming at, you must understand that we are talking about incidentswhich happened at least 10 years ago and in the meantime we allstarted new lives. We all went out of the security police, therewere never any statements taken about what happened that nightand therefore I can't come to the Commission and tell the Commissionexactly what happened then. For 10 years I have never thoughtabout the incidents, I never talked about them, it was never discussedin my house so you must accept that thoughts fade away. We areonly human, it is possible to forget things like that. QUESTION:: ...because when W/O Van Vuuren was testifyingwhen I put the question to him about this, then he readily saidthat this is not what I said in my application, no you come andsay that he's actually the person who told that this happened. ANSWER:: Unfortunately I can't give you an answer to that. QUESTION:: ...under paragraph (b) I will read "Gerry Thibedi was possibly killed or injured and the houseis completely destroyed." ANSWER:: I also received that from Mr Van Vuuren, Mr Chair. QUESTION:: ...from Mr Van Vuuren he would have testifiedabout this when he was giving his own evidence, not so? ANSWER:: Please repeat the question. QUESTION:: ...came from W/O Van Vuuren it would have beenexpected of him to testify about it when he was giving his own evidence because he is the author of this. QUESTION:: ...state this in his application? QUESTION:: Did you know Gerry Thibedi before? ANSWER:: No I did not know him before, I did have thehonour of meeting him. QUESTION:: Now seeing that you were being told almosteverything by W/O Van Vuuren, would you agree with me then itmeans that the possibility exists that you may not have told theCommittee everything pertaining to this particular incident andthis would impact itself of full disclosure? Would you agreewith me? ANSWER:: Mr Chair, everything that was told to me in whichI was involved, all the relevant facts were relayed in my applicationand I can't say anything more than that which is in my application. QUESTION:: When carrying out operations in other areas,let's take in this instance in Bophutatswana, do you get in touchor do you contact the police force in that particular area orcountry? ANSWER:: No they were never contacted, we went in undercover completely on our own. QUESTION:: I don't know how will you respond to this ifI put it to you that Gerry Thibedi will testify and part of hisevidence will be that 15 minutes after the explosion in his house,the police of Bophutatswana in the person of Gerry Mokubjana(?)arrived with other police on the scene. Would you say it wasa coincidence? ANSWER:: Obviously the police were much better then becausetoday you won't have the police coming to your house in 15 minutes. I can't help you in this instance, I can't explainit. QUESTION: Are you further aware that Gerry Thibedi and his family afterthis incident, were detained by the Bophutatswana police? ANSWER:: Unfortunately not at all, I never went back toany of my, any of the places where I acted, I committed a deedin this case but I never went back. We did receive reports butin the light of the fact that Gerry was not one of the subjectsof my office, I can unfortunately not help you, I do not know. QUESTION:: ...operation of yours, was there any follow-upby members of the security force on Gerry Thibedi? ANSWER:: Unfortunately I can't answer this, I do not know. CHAIRMAN:: Of the many incidents in respect of which youare applying for amnesty, are there any incidents of which youhave a clear recollection? ANSWER:: Yes Mr Chair I can for example remember Hon Mkhatshwa. I can also remember the preparation regarding the operationagainst him, and there are also other incidents I can rememberto a greater or to a lesser extent. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Page 172 of your application, I think one ofmy colleagues has already asked a question relating to this aspect "Gerry Thibedi was possibly killed or injured in termsof his family and the inhabitants of his house, etc..." Was that from your personal recollection or...? ANSWER:: No we discussed these issues Mr Van Vuuren andI, we sat in an office and discussed them and we wondered about it and a lot of information became more clear as we discussedit. If you forgot something and you discuss it with a colleagueor a friend, somebody who was with you for example at a rugbymatch you can perhaps later remember some of those things. Ata later stage once again, you will disagree once again about amemory but this must during our initial discussion have come through. QUESTION:: ...in line with the trend of discussion youhad with Mr Van Vuuren? ANSWER:: Yes I did hear in his testimony that this wasa safe-house, it was discussed at a later stage but in my applicationit was never corrected. I accept that in his application itwas put that it was a safe-house but originally we discussed itand wondered if it was his house. During our initial discussionsthis came to the fore. QUESTION:: ...in terms of the police understanding ofa safe-house, you would not expect a person to use a house inwhich, you wouldn't describe a person's house where he lived withhis family, as a safe-house? QUESTION:: If in fact there was a perception amongst youand your colleagues that Mr Thibedi lived in that house with hisfamily, then that house could hardly be described as a safe-house. ANSWER:: Yes that is so but I want to make it very clearthat possibly at a later stage it was corrected by Mr Van Vuuren,I only omitted to correct my application. I heard in his applicationthat he said it was a safe-house, perhaps in the initial discussionduring our initial discussion thereof it was discussed that itwas his house. It is possible but it is also true that a privatehouse can never QUESTION:: If this house can hardly be described as asafe-house, then it means you destroyed a house which was nota legitimate.... ANSWER:: The house was not the target, Mr Thibedi wasthe target. QUESTION:: In fact you could have...destroying the house? ANSWER:: Under circumstances yes but the problem we hadwas where do we find Mr Thibedi, when do we find him, he was livingin Shoshunguwe, we do not know the area of Shoshunguwe, it's farfrom our base and the place where we operated. Times were difficultin black townships and one did not want to go into them unnecessarily. Your yourself was there and you know how it was there. Ifyou were found there you would have had problems, if you werea white person in a black township. QUESTION:: ...the police just got annoyed and angry withthis person and then they decided that we destroy his house. ANSWER:: Mr Chair no, we truly in all the cases in whichI was involved believed there were more than one reports frominformants, I received my information from Col Loots. The volumeof information that came through which we received from variousinformants, we were never personally involved with these persons,he was the enemy and we were simply not personally involved. We did not experience a personal feeling of animosity. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter hadyour application been drafted in terms of what you rememberedof what Mr Van Vuuren told you? QUESTION:: Captain Hechter could you explain to the Committeebriefly, I know Mr Van Vuuren also did so, why you used a bomb? ANSWER:: This bomb, if it does not eliminate, has a remarkableintimidation factor in the first place, and then secondly thegeneral public as well as other security forces would have deducedthat the ANC was playing with explosives and simply blew themselvesup. This was the rationale for our use of this kind of bombor explosive device. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I proceed with the nextincident? INTERPRETER:: The Chair is not using his mike. MR ?:: Mr Chairman I may mention that the legal representativeof Mr Deon Nieuwoudt is present here. INTERPRETER:: The Chair is not using his mike. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Van der Merwe I'm afraid you're not neara loudspeaker you'll have to come forward. MR VAN DER MERWE:: Thank you, I beg your pardon. Thename is Francois Van der Merwe and I am from the firm Van derMerwe & Bester in Port Elizabeth, an attorney's firm, I aman attorney. I have arrived here this morning, I don't knowMr Chairman what you expect of me, I wasn't present when the previousprocedures took place. We are unfortunately, I would respectfullyrequest that the proceedings be, as far as Mr Nieuwoudt is concerned,be postponed. We are of the opinion that the summons was servedon a very short notice on Mr Nieuwoudt. We received the summons on Thursday afternoon at 15:00. We are also notin a position to at this stage know what evidence has been ledbefore the Committee as such. I think the principle of fairnessand equity would suffice that my client should be allowed to atleast be put in a position where he can have a look at all thedocumentation, statements and evidence that was led before theCommittee. We are further also respectfully of the submissionthat in this instance there was a non-compliance with Section19(4) of the Act of the Truth Commission as Mr Nieuwoudt onlygot notice from the Truth Commission of this hearing simultaneouslywith the subpoena being served on him on Thursday afternoon at15:00. I might just also add that we have got an undertaking which isan order of court from the Truth Commission that Mr Nieuwoudtwill be informed if any evidence should be led against him andwe have not been informed at any stage of any evidence that wasled. This was also the source of litigation previously in theEastern Cape and I think Mr Valli(?), who is the chief legal representativeof the Truth Commission, is well aware of this court order. Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Mpshe is there anything you wish to say? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman there is nothing I wish to say,thank you. CHAIRMAN:: Is it correct that there was short notice inthis matter? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman that is correct, they were onlyserved on Thursday Mr Chairman, although Mr Chairman I must justventure to mention here that the Act does not mention when serviceis to be effected, in other words it does not indicate the days for service. On reasonable grounds one wouldcome to the conclusion that the service was indeed short. INTERPRETER:: The Chair is not using the mike. CHAIRMAN:: Although there is no provision in the Ruleas to what period should be allowed when giving notice to a potentialwitness or interested party, that a fortnight has been decidedas being reasonable notice. Are you aware of that? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I'm not aware of that order MrChairman, all that I'm aware of which was conveyed...(side 1 oftape 2 ends)...that order. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Van der Merwe what's the period mentionedin the court order? MR VAN DER MERWE:: The court order says shortly that MrNieuwoudt would be supplied with all statements supplied to theTruth Commission proper as well as given notice of anybody, therewas no mention of a period. The specific undertaking in thiscourt order is that it would be done prior to the evidence beingled obviously otherwise it would defeat the purpose of this courtorder. MR ?:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl is in a verysimilar position in that it was served on him at 11:30 by wayof Mr Roux's office, his attorney on Thursday and he is in a similarposition that he's in the dark as to what is expected of him. We could not consult properly and all the rest that Mr Van derMerwe indicated to the Court. We would also like to obtain information,the original application as well as a transcription of what happenedin the proceedings so we can in a proper manner look at it and then be able to indicate to the Committee what we want to do andthen proceed on that basis. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Mr Van der Merwe I trust that you are notconveying that there is a court order binding on us, the AmnestyCommittee, which we failed to comply with. I think it must beclarified that you are referring to a court order which (indistinct)different proceedings. We don't stand here having not compliedwith any court order. MR VAN DER MERWE:: I will, let me say how I understandit at the moment. The court order cited the Chairperson of theTruth Commission, Bishop Desmond Tutu, as well as the Truth Commission. I think at this stage I'm not sure, I think we will reserveour rights in that regard, I don't know I haven't had time togo into it. I am not making any allegations and I'm certainlynot looking to pick a fight at this stage. All I'm saying iswe were under the impression that it would cover all the operationsof the Truth Commission, certainly this is something which canbe resolved I think fairly easily. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Yes it can be and I was and I was justmentioning that, I was not trying to create obstacles in yourway. I understand that your client, well I don't want to preachbut I understand your problem. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman just a clarification, counsel MrDe Villiers for Mr Sakkie Van Zyl stated that Mr Sakkie Van Zylis in a similar position. I want to put it right that it cannotbe that he's in a similar position inasfar as the court orderis concerned, that only affects Mr Nieuwoudt alone. CHAIRMAN:: No, I think he was referring to the fact ofthe shortness of notice, inadequate notice. MR MPSHE:: Then I am indebted to the Chair. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I perhaps have an opportunityfrom the applicant's point of view just to comment on the applications? Mr Chairman in respect of the court order, I've read in thenewspapers about the court order, I don't exactly know in whatway the court order binds this Committee. What I would wantto say in respect of the 14 day period, I'm informed by my learnedfriend Mr Curran that that was applicable, or that is applicableto witnesses apparently who have to appear in front of the HumanRights Violation's Committee. Mr Chairman if I read Section30 correctly, and especially Section 30(2), it makes provisionspecifically for this Committee to request a person to give evidenceat the hearing of the Commission. If one reads Section 30(2)carefully, it says "If during any investigations by or any hearing beforethe Commission, that means during any hearing before the Commission,any person is implicated in a manner which may be to his or herdetriment the Commission shall, if such person is available, affordhim or her an opportunity to submit representations..." and then in the last sentence: "...or to give evidence at a hearing of the Commission." Now that clearly must be the same hearing referred to in the firstsentence of sub-section (2). I read this Section as meaningthat the procedure that the Committee has followed under thesecircumstances, is the correct procedure. There is not time periodand obviously one then has to apply the normal rules of natural justice, which means that a reasonabletime period afforded to a person would be proper. The indicationis that both these witnesses have had knowledge of the fact thatthey are required to appear on Thursday and it is our view thatunder the circumstances, where we are not dealing with a criminaltrial or a civil trial and where we're simply dealing with somebodywho has to come and tell the truth, and where we are also dealingwith a situation that these witnesses will only be required togive evidence at these hearings in respect of the applicationof Col Venter, so their evidence will be very limited. It willbe relevant pertaining to Col Venter's application. On that basis we fail to see where any prejudice lies in respectof these witnesses, perhaps the only prejudice might be that theyhaven't seen the specific application and the written part thereof. MR MPSHE(?):: I'm not even sure they need to see the applicationbeforehand. MR DU PLESSIS:: I beg your pardon? MR MPSHE:: I'm not even sure whether they were entitledto have sight into the application beforehand. MR DU PLESSIS:: As I read the Act, they wouldn't havebeen entitled in any event, they are required to give evidenceat the hearing and that evidence should be dealt with in termsof the Act. CHAIRMAN:: I do not think it is necessary for us to gointo the matter as to whether they ought or not to have rightsor access to the evidence. It does seem to me patently clearthat they have not had adequate notice and they would like toknow what they are going to be questioned about. In the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that their applicationfor a postponement of this aspect of the case should be granted. There is a problem to the extent that in respect of those individualswho have been served with a subpoena, this postponement unfortunatelycannot be arranged in such a way that I can postpone it to a fixeddate. I would like them to signify personally and through theircounsel that they will not require a further subpoena in orderto attend the hearing at the adjourned date, which is to be determinedbetween counsel, Mr Mpshe and the other interested parties. Thathearing can only take place at some stage which none of us atthis stage have any idea. MR VAN DER MERWE:: Yes Mr Chairman I think that shouldn'tbe a problem to issue new summonses. I am speaking for my client. CHAIRMAN:: ...Mr Van Zyl as well presumably? MR DE VILLIERS:: That's correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Winter can you please just rise? JudgeWilson has something to say in respect of the inconvenience thathas been caused to you, bearing in mind that you've turned uptoday without having been subpoenaed. JUDGE WILSON:: I understand, I personally did not hearthat the reports about the issuing subpoena indicated that thepersons named may have been involved in the commission of offences. I think it only right we should make it quite clear that ifanybody who was present at the hearings last week would have knownthe evidence relating to Mr Winter related to his position asCommanding Officer of the Special Branch of Cradock and of whathe did in connection with Mr Venter's visit there. It did notrelate or suggest that he had taken any part in the kidnapping or any part in what subsequentlyhappened and I should think it is regrettable if there was anyreport which indicated anything to the contrary. It is his evidence,the evidence led indicated that he might well be able to throwa light on what was going on in his district at that time andit was for this purpose that he was subpoenaed as a witness. We thank him for having come here today and I gather he alsosaw Mr Mpshe last week and is prepared to give such evidence. We regret that because we are going to adjourn, we'll have toadjourn yours as well. I trust we can make arrangements thatwe can give you adequate notice of the adjourned hearing. MR WINTER:: Thank you sir, I accept it like that. MayI just add this is, according to me a serious matter, the whole,my problem is that on Thursday evening while driving from workhome, I turned on my car radio to hear that I'm "verdwynsoos 'n groot kopspeld", a man who owns a home, who has afamily, has a fixed job that goes to church on Sundays, who doeshis shopping at every shop he needs to go, so I'm not runningaway from anything, I'm not hiding anywhere. This is my mainproblem. Such embarrassment has been caused that I'm now ina position where I don't know if I'm employed anymore becauseI can't blame my employer for, when he switched his radio on tohear his employee is a fugitive criminal. That is my problem,that's my concern, so I don't know if somebody can rectify thisor will try and rectify this? This broadcast was done by AngieCaprianos as far as I heard on the radio. JUDGE WILSON:: I regret we have no control over broadcastsand I certainly have no recollection of it having been said atthis hearing that you had disappeared or anything of that MR WINTER:: I thank you sir and I will accept it likethat, I will deal with it at another time(?). CHAIRMAN:: Before you leave will you kindly make youraddress available so that a subpoena can be served upon you forthe adjourned hearing? MR WINTER:: I will gladly do so sir. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you Mr Winter. What this really nowmeans is that evidence in respect of what has been described inthese proceedings as the "Pepco 3 Case" will not beproceeded with now and will only be resumed on another day. Wemay now proceed then with the rest of the matters that have beenset down. Mr Beselaar, is he represented? MR DU PLESSIS:: No Mr Chairman, I mentioned that Mr Beselaaris not represented at the hearings, I consulted with him and weassisted him but he's not represented at the hearing. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, well steps will have to be taken to ascertainhis address. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes no problem, we know exactly wherehe is. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I may mention it's not necessaryto subpoena him, he will volunteer to give evidence. CHAIRMAN:: Very well that will be recorded. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman do I hear the Committee to be sayingthat fresh subpoenas will have to be issued for the next dateMr Chairman? CHAIRMAN:: Only in respect of Mr Winter who has neverbeen subpoenaed. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman before we ask permission toleave, there is one other point we would like to take up withthe Commission and that's the point about costs. We would askfor costs to be awarded for our client who is not in a positionto pay for his legal personnel, but if the Court wants us to submitlegal representations, we would rather do that and afford theCommittee an opportunity to go further with the hearing today. CHAIRMAN:: I do not know whether I can make any rulingson the question of costs. This is an Amnesty Committee whereissues of cost are not decided by the Amnesty Committee. I thinkthat you must make your representations to the Truth and ReconciliationCommission, the appropriate officer there and see if you can negotiatewith them. MR DU PLESSIS:: As the Committee pleases. MR VAN DER MERWE:: Excuse me Mr Chairman if I may justadd as well please. We have received no assistance as far astravel arrangements and accommodation is concerned, I'm not talkingabout legal costs incurred. I have reason to believe that thefamily members of the so-called Pepco Three as well as their legalrepresentatives were flown up here at the expense of the TruthCommission. My client has been subpoenaed to come here, I wouldlike to know what the position would be just as far as coveringhis travel expenses and possibly we couldn't arrange for a flightback tonight, all the flights is (indistinct), we will be goingback at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN:: I can do no more than tell you to raise thematter with the relevant officer of the Truth and ReconciliationCommission. MR DE JAGER(?):: I think there are regulations, prescribedregulations as far as travelling costs and subsistence allowancesare concerned. As the Chairman said, you can take that up withthe legal advisor of the Commission but there are regulationsapplicable and I think it's been done through the Legal Aid Boardand there are prescribed tariffs as far as witness fees and soon is concerned. MR VAN DER MERWE:: Is there any name of a person who Ican get in contact with? MR DE JAGER:: I think you must arrange that with Mr Mpsheafter the adjournment. MR VAN DER MERWE:: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN:: You are excused from further attendance andso are your respective clients. CHAIRMAN:: Unfortunately time is taken up when the Committeeis in chambers with all kinds of matters pertaining to this hearing,directly or indirectly, and sometimes we are delayed in commencingproceedings. I find that we are now nearing 1 o'clock and itmight not be particularly prudent to make a beginning with a witnessmerely to have him sworn in and then to commence his evidenceafter the adjournment. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman, I would prefer it ifwe could start with his evidence after the adjournment. CHAIRMAN:: Alright, the Committee will now take an adjournmentand resume at 2 o'clock. COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION CHAIRMAN:: Before proceeding with this witness, wouldit not be appropriate for us to finalise this chapter by callingMr Tibedi? MR DU PLESSIS:: I have no objection against that Mr Chairman. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman he is available he may be calledMr Chairman, though I have not consulted with him. CHAIRMAN:: Was it not your intention to call him as awitness? MR MPSHE:: It was my intention Mr Chairman but not assoon as this, I thought we were going to finish with (indistinct)as they come but there is no problem in calling him right now. CHAIRMAN:: Is it correct that once we hear his evidencethen there will be no other evidence relating to this incident,it will have rounded off this matter and we think it might beappropriate if we could round off this matter. MR MPSHE:: I will abide by that Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Can you just step down, please step down, we'regoing to get hold of Mr Tibedi to give evidence. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman may I just be afforded a minutewith him here? CHAIRMAN:: Yes certainly, certainly. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Tibedi are you prepared to take the oathin this matter? MR TIBEDI:: Yes I'm prepared to. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi what is your occupation at this moment? ANSWER:: I am the Speaker of the North-West ProvincialLegislature. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi you were present in this hearingsince this morning when evidence was given by Mr Van Vuuren aswell as Hechter about yourself? QUESTION:: You heard all that was being said. QUESTION:: I would like you to testify to this Committeeas to what happened to you at the time when the bomb was beingthrown into your house? ANSWER:: I must say that firstly this is the most emotionalday of my life, having to sit inside this room together with peoplewho, nine years ago, threw a bomb into my own house. I must saythat after listening to what they have to say, indicating thatthey have actually identified me as a trouble-maker, I find itvery difficult to accept that their final decision was to wipeme out, with my entire family. For the mere fact that it tookme exactly nine years, nine solid years to know who did that,is a source of relief, at least I know who did it. I must putit on record that the event took place on 22 October in 1987. It happened at about 2 o'clock in the morning. Prior to thatincident on 7 October of the same year, in 1987, there were peoplewho came to my place driving in a cream white E20, as I was informedby my wife who were looking for me at the time. My wife becameso suspicious that even if they were policemen, their missionwas not to arrest, but they had a mission which was known to themselvesonly because they claimed to be comrades, they claimed to havebeen activists, they claimed to know me, but what surprised mywife the most was to say, was when they asked her what kind of car am I driving. I must say that since that day when I arrived home, I leftimmediately and I was not to sleep at home again. I only returnedback home on 19 October after a long drive, I was tired, I hadto sleep at home. Little did I... ANSWER:: On the 19th, that's when I returned home fromthe 7th. When I slept at home on the 19th, nothing happened. When I woke up on the 20th I just thought, I told myself thatI must just as well continue to sleep in my house. Little didI realise that two days thereafter, a bomb was going to be throwninto my house. I must say that after that happened I was bothangry and relieved, because at least I knew they were lookingfor me, they couldn't get me, the attempted on my life and theyfailed. That was the part that made me relieved, but the partthat they wanted to kill me with my entire family, and I havelost all my belongings, made me very angry. The propaganda theyused, you must realise that that explosion was so powerful that10 houses in my surroundings were damaged and that created problemsbecause some members of the, of my, some members in my neighbourhoodwere convinced by the police propaganda, were convinced by thepolice propaganda that I had that bomb in my house and that that...bythe police propaganda thereafter that that bomb, I had it in myhouse, it exploded prematurely. It took me some time to convincemembers within my community that this was actually done by noneother than the police because members of my community at the timeknew that I was arrested several times and apparently my onlyenemy at the time, I would assume, was the security police. I just want to clarify the point that the house whereI was sleeping, was my hideout. That is not true. That ismy house. On the day of the incident I was sleeping in thathouse with my wife, my daughter and my sister. My daughter wasseven at the time, seven years at that time. She is 16 yearsnow. My sister was 19, she was actually preparing for her Std10 examinations. The trauma my family underwent after that incidentis very difficult to relate to this House. My wife, my sisterhad continuous nightmares. We had to consult with clinical psychologiststo try and help, and what hurt me most was that I did not knowwho did it. I was hoping that I was going to testify last weekTuesday, it was going to be a coincidence because that was goingto be on the day of the 9th anniversary of that incident. QUESTION:: Did any member of your family, including yourself,suffer any physical injuries as a result of the bombing? ANSWER:: We got physical injuries but I wouldn't say theywere major, they were minor, we were affected by the shrapnel. QUESTION:: You testified that you lost your belongings,do you perhaps know what you lost and to what extent? ANSWER:: I lost all my furniture in the house, everythingthat you can imagine of that is kept in the house, was damaged. An electric stove was reduced to the size of this bottle. CHAIRMAN:: Is it about the house itself? ANSWER:: The house was damaged Mr Chairperson, the onlyadvantage that one had as they have testified, is because it was a shack house, it was a tin house, therefore the bomb wastoo powerful for it, instead of it falling inside, it fell apart. QUESTION:: I know it is quite a long time ago, but areyou in a position to tell this Committee exactly what you lostor would you chose perhaps to do that later in writing? ANSWER:: I think it would be more convenient for me ifI can do it in writing. QUESTION:: Then make the document available? QUESTION:: Thank you. Do you remember you and me consultedand you made mention of the fact that Col Gerry Mokubyane of thethen Bophutatswana police force arrived on the scene, 10 or 15minutes after the explosion. Can you say something on that? ANSWER:: As I said, the incident occurred at about 2 o'clockin the morning. At about 2:15 Col Gerry Mokubyane came leadinga squad of about 15 uniformed, M-o-k-u-b-y-a-n-e Gerry, he was a Colonel then. Yes, he cameleading a squad of plus/minus 15 men in camouflage uniform. The first thing he said to me was where were you when this thinghappened, and I said to him I was in the house. His reply was,no, his reply was "no you were not in this house". I said to him I was wearing a top of a pyjamas, a pyjamas shirt,I actually the father who stays in my back opposite borrowed mea trouser and when I went to the neighbour to knock of this incidentthey couldn't hardly open the door for me because the windowswere shattered, the door couldn't open up. So I stood there,my little child was crying, we were shocked all of us, I didn'tknow who was waiting on the side to shoot me in case I survived. Then hecame, he accused me of not having been in the house. Then Isaid to him I was in the house, I remember I got so angry becauseI said to him if you had prepared a statement about this incidentyou'd better go and read that statement as is, but I'm alive,I will counter it, that's what I said to him. He immediatelyordered all of us to be taken to hospital. I was refusing, butyou see the neighbour who persuaded me to say go into hospitalfor this minor injuries and for shock treatment is a good thingto do. Little did I realise that when I arrive in hospital,he had already issued another car to follow me that will takeme from hospital to Zone 5 police station. We were kept therefor a whole day, when my house was surrounded by police, who made... ANSWER:: Myself, my wife, my daughter and my sister, atthe police station, from the hospital we were driven to the policestation after we were treated. We were driven to the policestation, we were kept in separate rooms. I remember my littledaughter was crying all the time trying to find out what happened. I couldn't offer any answer because I was shocked myself. Then whilst we were at the police station, the house was surroundedby all this group of policemen. They made sure that they takeeach little evidence out of that place. I must say that whenI was returned home, I don't know how many police cars were there. My house or my yard looked like a mini police station, therewere many police cars in there. They collected each little evidencethey could come across, then they requested me or they demandedof me to report to the police station. That I must report to the police station the following day and afterconsulting with Chiddel (indistinct) &..... who were representingme at the time, I was advised not to do so but rather to go tothe lawyers. The following day the organisation which I belonged to at thetime, Cosatu, sent the assistant secretary-general of Cosatu atthe time, who is now the Minister of Public Safety & Security,Mr Sidney Mafumali to come and assess the damage. He did exactlythat and he reported back to Cosatu that everything was damagedbut no one was killed. The lawyers tried all the time to tryand gather information as to what happened, who did what, butthey could not come up with any answer. QUESTION:: You testified that you were later from thehospital detained, were you ever charged for anything by the thenBophutatswana police? ANSWER:: I was not charged, what happened is that ColMokubyane was having a tape as he was questioning me and his questioningline was that why do I belong to organisations and he said tome, because I was, I was a little bit surprised as to why I should,my belonging to an organisation be a problem because I said tohim no, I don't see anything wrong if I belong to an organisationand he called in, there's a white gentleman who came in, unfortunatelyI can't remember who it was, but apparently he was phoned andhe came from Pretoria, I suspect he came from Compol(?), who camewhen Mokubyane was questioning me. He sat there, he did notquestion me, but he was writing each and little information thatI was actually giving out to Mokubyane especially around my activities,which organisations I belonged to because I totally reject any suggestionthat I dealt with the making of explosives or whatever allegationsthat are being made, I was not involved in that I was merely atrade union leader who represents the interests of workers. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi, the fact that 10 minutes or so afterthe explosion the police arrived, and that during your questioningby Col Mokubyane you were asked about your membership to organisations,what did this bring to your mind in relation to the applicants? ANSWER:: Can you repeat your question please? QUESTION:: You testified that 10 minutes after the explosionCol Mokubyane arrived with a number of police, you were takento hospital with the family and then detained again with the family. These things happening so close together, what did they meanto you or what impression did they make to you? ANSWER:: Well I thought, and I still believe even at thismoment, that there was some kind of communication between thesecurity police and the hit-squad department together with theBop Government. I am convinced in my own mind that couldn'thave been a coincidence. QUESTION BY UNKNOWN PERSON - NO MICROPHONE ANSWER:: The hit squads and the Bop police. QUESTION:: The Bop police Mr Chairman would mean the Bophutatswanapolice. ANSWER:: The Bophutatswana police. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi you heard the evidence of the applicants,not only today and the other days when you were here, that theyare sorry for what they have done to you and that is the purpose for their application for amnesty. Whatwould your response be to their application and remorse statedby themselves? ANSWER:: You see that is a very difficult question toanswer, more especially if you find yourself in my situation whereyou only realise now who did this kind of thing. You see itmust also be dealt with at two levels, I must deal with it attwo levels. The first level will be at a family level, I'llhave to deal with it at a family level first and try to seek consensuswithin my family members as to what their feelings will be. Yes, they claim I was a target, but in their action they knewthey were not only targeting at me, they knew they were killingme and my entire family. That's why I'm saying I still have toconsult at that level. The second level will be at an organisationallevel, I am a member of the Provincial Executive Committee ofthe ANC and surely at that level I've got to share some of theseexperiences with my colleagues. Having said that I am awareof the position of the ANC inasfar as the whole question of Nationalreconciliation is concerned and I am fully in support of whatthe ANC says about National reconciliation. I also agree thatreconciliation cannot be given until there is full disclosure,we can only be given amnesty once we have disclosed everythingand they we will be able to achieve, to achieve reconciliation. In my own mind, in my own mind I don't think the process ofamnesty, as we are sitting today, will work until we get a fullcommitment from the perpetrators. You see, to say I'm sorryI won't do it again is not enough. We are sitting with a problemwhere the victims are the ones who seem to be expected to sayI am sorry all the time. I'm saying here that it's high time that the perpetrators also, not only in wordsbut in deeds, they must be able to go all out and convince theircommunities that yes, we acted in this way and we acted wrongly. It's not enough to say to me I am sorry Tibedi, but to me Ithink the process will be assisted a great deal if they can goout and say to their own communities whom they were trying toprotect, as they are claiming, they must go and say to them wedid it in the name of apartheid, we are sorry we apologise andwe want you to follow us in this example. Then the process,the process will then be easy, the process of reconciliation willthen be easy, but that's my view. So I'm sorry I don't havea yes or no answer to your question. QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman that will be the evidence. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Tibedi were youpresent when General Van der Merwe gave evidence? QUESTION:: Were you present when the hearings in thismatter started, right at the start? ANSWER:: You mean this morning? QUESTION:: No, right at the start last week Monday. QUESTION:: Were you present when the applicants read outtheir opening statement to this Committee? QUESTION:: Because Mr Tibedi I've heard what you testifiednow and I want to draw your attention to the fact that what youasked of the applicants now, right at the end, in respect of reconciliationand where you said that the process will be assisted if the applicants go out and say theydid it in the name of apartheid, I want to draw your attentionto the fact that in the opening statement they said the following: "We do not believe that our endeavours to uphold apartheidwere worth the pain and suffering on both sides and we are ofthe firm belief that the actions of both sides of the conflictwere excessive and unnecessary, and could have been avoided. We believe that the truth will assist in preventing such happeningsto occur in future in South Africa." "We will give evidence about our actions during the timeof the conflict and will show that all our actions were purelyand simply associated with the political objective to uphold theNational Party Government and apartheid, to fight Communism andto resist liberation of South Africa." "We were brought up to believe in apartheid. We weremade to believe that apartheid was sanctioned by God through thechurch. We were made to believe that our participation in thesecurity forces was justified to uphold apartheid. We were madeto believe that black people were inferior and the needs and emotionsand the aspirations of black people differed from ours. We weremade to believe that we were superior and that these differencesjustified apartheid. We have come to realise that these beliefswere wrong, morally and in reality and we do not hold these beliefsanymore. We believe that the example set by the President ofSouth Africa, Nelson Mandela in respect of reconciliation, forgivenessand understanding should be followed by everyone in South Africa." Does that accord with what you testified just now you expect fromthe applicants? ANSWER:: To some extent yes, but I also think, you'llforgive me if maybe it is mentioned somewhere in your statement,I also think that it will be important if we take it beyond thatbecause I read that statement to mean that it is a statement preparedfor this particular hearing and I think that it will be usefulif the individual members concerned could take it beyond, beyondthis particular moment and be able to go out there in their communitiesand do exactly that because that is the main problem that we arebeing faced with and talking here on behalf of the organisationto say people are not happy about the manner in which the perpetratorsseem to be responding. So I am saying to a certain extent orto some extent, yes that statement does cover what I said as myclosing remarks. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi do you accept that what was saidin the opening statement by the applicants come from their hearts,that they mean it and that they are bona fide? ANSWER:: It will be difficult for me to respond to thatquestion, I don't know. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi is there any basis upon which youcan say to us that you can't accept it? ANSWER:: I have already mentioned that whether to acceptit or not to accept it...(end of side 1 of tape 3)... QUESTION:: ...is that right, and as I understand or asI make the deduction, and tell me if I'm wrong, you have yourwhole life been in leadership positions, is that right? ANSWER:: My whole, my adult life. QUESTION:: Yes, can you give us a little bit of informationof the leadership positions you were in? ANSWER:: Well my leadership positions actually revolvedaround the trade union movement basically. I will start from1980. From 1980 I was employed by Siemens and that is whereI became active, I was working in their laboratory, that is whereI became active as a shop steward. I was then elected chairpersonof the committee in Siemens plant. The following year I was electedsecretary of the National Shop Steward Council of Siemens Groupof Companies. I was elected secretary of the National Shop StewardCouncil of Siemens Group of Companies and in 1983 I was electedchairperson of the Pretoria area of the Metal & Allied WorkersUnion. That is the position I held until 1995 when I was elected,the beginning of 1996 when I was elected chairperson of Cosatuin the Northern Transvaal Region. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi during the 1980's you supported thestruggle? ANSWER:: Yes I felt very much uncomfortable with the apartheidsystem, I wanted to change it. QUESTION:: You supported, tell me if I'm wrong - if mydeduction is wrong - you supported the ANC? ANSWER:: The ANC was a banned organisation, I was a memberof the United Democratic Front, in 1983, from 1983. QUESTION:: With the United Democratic Front? QUESTION:: Yes. At that stage, even though the ANC wasa banned organisation and you could not say too much loudly aboutit, did you support the ideals and the methods of the ANC? ANSWER:: Yes I supported the ideals enshrined in the FreedomCharter. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi the, if you'll just bear with meMr Chairman, have you had any discussions with Mr Van Vuuren andMr Hechter during these proceedings? ANSWER:: I had discussions with Mr Van Vuuren this morning. QUESTION:: Yes, and was there any suggestion made to youabout appearing with Mr Van Vuuren on a television programme? QUESTION:: What was your reaction? ANSWER:: Well I, firstly I was opposed to it but aftersome explanation it was explained to me that the purpose of theappearance is for me to ask Mr Van Vuuren some questions as towhy he did what he did. I made it very clear that if there isany television appearance I would like to appear on my own andgive my own version, so which means that appearance is simplyto ask those questions and get some clarity on those questions. QUESTION:: Yes, Mr Tibedi I just want to put it to youthat Mr Van Vuuren, as I understand it, has extended a hand offriendship to you, that he was prepared to appear in this televisionprogramme with you and that from the side of the conflict thatboth Mr Van Vuuren and Mr Hechter comes from, that they bear no- from their point of view in respect of actions against them- they bear no grudges and no animosity whatsoever towards you or towards anybody else who was involvedin the struggle. What is your comment on that? ANSWER:: Well my comment is simply that inasfar as dealingwith that matter is concerned, that matter will be located withinthe whole question of whether I accept or I don't accept theirapplication for amnesty, and I accept, I prefer to deal with thatmatter at the levels that I have explained. Secondly I wantto say that Mr Van Vuuren, or the person who spoke to me aboutthe interview did not indicate to me whether that interview wasarranged on conditions or on pre-conditions because if that isthe case then I'm prepared to reconsider my position. QUESTION:: Right thank you. The only reason why I putthis to you is to explain to you what Mr Van Vuuren's attitudetowards you is today. QUESTION:: And that also includes Mr Hechter's attitudetowards you. Mr Tibedi were the trade unions involved in consumerboycotts at a specific time during the 1980's, as a general question? ANSWER:: Well generally I would say it depends which sectorthe union is organising in, but as far as I can remember yes therewere some Cosatu affiliates who get involved in consumer boycotts,but you see there are other unions also who couldn't get involvedin consumer boycotts simply because what they are producing wasnot something that was directly consumed by the community, thereforeit was difficult for you to say to the community boycott thisparticular product. Therefore I will say yes some unions gotinvolved in consumer boycotts but others did not, depending onwhat kind of products was involved. QUESTION:: Mr Tibedi am I right in saying that you testifiedthat you were arrested a few times, is that correct? QUESTION:: Would it be correct to make the deduction thenthat you were a thorn in the flesh of the authorities of the apartheidregime at that time? ANSWER:: I would prefer to respond this way, that theywere a thorn in my flesh. QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON:: Mr Tibedi how long had you lived in yourhouse before it was bombed, approximately? ANSWER:: I moved in that house in 1983 beginning, letme say 1982, it was the end of 1982. JUDGE WILSON:: I think I understood from your evidencethat you had electricity connected there? JUDGE WILSON:: It wasn't an electric stove? JUDGE WILSON:: Did you make use of that address? ANSWER:: Yes I, I, my family still stay in the house atthe present moment. CHAIRMAN:: They still stay there? JUDGE WILSON:: Your sister, would she have used that asher home address at school? ANSWER:: She used that as her home address at school. JUDGE WILSON:: Your neighbours did you know them all? ANSWER:: I know a few but I can be prepared to presenta list of addresses. JUDGE WILSON:: I don't mean as personal friends, but theyall knew you lived there did they? ANSWER:: They know, they are still living there even atthe present moment. JUDGE WILSON:: Why I'm asking you is to find out whetherthere was any possibility that anybody who had made enquiriescould believe that that was not your home? ANSWER:: I can extend an invitation to all members ofthe Commission to visit that house and verify, they will findout that that is still my residence. JUDGE WILSON:: And it was in this day of 1987? JUDGE WILSON:: You see, we've heard evidence that informantafter informant said this was a safehouse. Could anyone havebeen under such a belief? ANSWER:: I don't know where that information came fromMr Chairman, but I can only say that that is not true. JUDGE WILSON:: How far is your home from the police station? ANSWER:: Maybe about 10 kilometres roughly. JUDGE WILSON:: How long would it take you to drive? ANSWER:: About five, seven minutes. JUDGE WILSON:: So it's possible the police, if they'dbeen notified immediately of an explosion, could have driven toyour house from the police station? ANSWER:: That is very possible, the only thing that struckme is that whether the Colonel was working night-shift, whetherhe could be ready to get up within 10 minutes and be at my place,leading a squad of 10-15 men, that is the kind of information I can't find an answer when I keep on thinkingabout it. JUDGE WILSON:: It's the kind of information that oughtto appear in police records. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON CHAIRMAN:: Was your house situated in a built-up areaat that time? ANSWER:: You mean, can you repeat your question sir? CHAIRMAN:: Was your house in a built-up area? ANSWER:: Yes my house was, it was, it's in a built-uparea, it's also, I also bought a stand, a site in that particularplace and I was preparing myself to build when this thing happened,I didn't really have a formal structure. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, and the adjoining houses that were damaged,how far were they from your house? ANSWER:: Well you see from my neighbourhood up to thefourth house, both on the left and on the right, my front opposite,it's like a township structure as you might know it. ANSWER:: No it's not the veld, it's a township, it wasactually a middle-class area to be specific. CHAIRMAN:: The people that came to your house a few daysearlier to enquire about what car you drove, were you not at homeat the time? ANSWER:: I was attending a executive committee meetingof Cosatu at the time in Pretoria. CHAIRMAN:: So who was it that spoke to those people, wasit your wife? CHAIRMAN:: The question they asked your wife was whatcar you drove? ANSWER:: The first question that he put to my wife waswhether I'm in the house or not and she said no I was not in thehouse. They begin to enquire about my movements and they saidactually they were coming to inform me that the police were afterme therefore I should take cover and they were saying they willbe available in case I would like to be assisted in terms of whereto go an hide so that they should actually drive around with meand they, they took some rounds, a few rounds, two or three roundsin that area before I actually arrived. Fortunately my wifewalked up my neighbourhood and she actually used a telephone,a telephone, in one of the houses in my street where she was actuallytrying to find out where I was at the time. CHAIRMAN:: Your motor vehicle was parked in your yardthat night when your house was blown up? ANSWER:: Yes it was parked in my house. CHAIRMAN:: Is that where normally your car is parked? ANSWER:: Yes it was normally where my car is being parked. CHAIRMAN:: Your neighbours and the people in that areaall know that that is your car? ANSWER:: Yes sir they will know that. JUDGE NGCOBE:: When you say you used the address of thathouse, did that also mean that you actually received post throughthat address? JUDGE NGCOBE:: This vehicle, was it registered in yourname? ANSWER:: Yes it was registered in my name. JUDGE Ngoepe:: To which address? ANSWER:: The very same address, 589 Block U, Makopane. JUDGE Ngoepe:: So the registration authorities would haveyour name and your particulars of your vehicle and your address? ANSWER:: Yes, although the car is sold to a differentperson but the records will have to be there. JUDGE Ngoepe:: Ja I mean at that time? JUDGE WILSON:: What was the address you said? ANSWER:: 589 Block U, Makopane it's about 3 kilometresaway from (indistinct). MR DE JAGER:: How many people came and made enquiriesat your house at that time, the few days before when you weren'tthere? ANSWER:: The information I have received is that one personcame to knock at the door but they were driving in a Kombi andas that person was moving back to the Kombi my wife saw that therewere a number of people in the Kombi but she couldn't actuallytell how many were there. MR DE JAGER:: Could she say whether it was black or whitepeople? ANSWER:: Well the guy who came to knock at the door wasa black person but those who were in the car we don't have anyinformation. MS KHAMPEPE:: Mr Tibedi had any person earlier, before7 October, been to your house looking for you? ANSWER:: Not that I can remember. MS KHAMPEPE:: So what made your wife suspect that thepeople who came in calling themselves comrades, your comrades and looking for you were in fact, she suspected thatthey were from the police? ANSWER:: Well it was for the first time that people cameto my house to inform me that the police were actually lookingfor me, I should take cover. Usually when the police come, evenmy comrades don't even know because they also fall victims ofthat arrest, they usually arrest me early hours of the morningso it was a strange thing that all of a sudden people coming witha Kombi saying they are coming to tip me off that the police areactually looking for me, but not knowing what kind of a car I'mdriving. MS KHAMPEPE:: So you honestly believe that the peoplewho ultimately came and bombed your house are the same peoplewho initially came on 7 October and spoke to your wife about yourwhereabouts? JUDGE Ngoepe:: Mr Tibedi may I ask you, besides this particularhouse did you have any other house? ANSWER:: No that was my only house, it is still my onlyhouse even right now I don't have any other house except my officialhouse in Mmbatho. JUDGE Ngoepe:: Is there any other house in which duringthat period you stayed which was possibly not your house? ANSWER:: No that was the only house that I used as myresidence. JUDGE WILSON:: Where did you stay when you went away fromyour house and slept away for a few days? ANSWER:: I have a cousin in Unit X in Makupane, the houseNo is 611, that is where I stayed. MR DE JAGER:: Were your family also staying with you at611 during those nights or were they left at home? ANSWER:: My family was left behind at 589. MR DE JAGER:: They remained at 589. MS KHAMPEPE:: Mr Tibedi when the people came to make thisfriendly call to make enquiries about yourself to your wife, wasyour child around the house? ANSWER:: Both my child and my sister were in the house. MS KHAMPEPE:: Were they visible to the people who cameto make this call? ANSWER:: The person who was visible will be my wife becausemy daughter was already asleep at the time, it will be my wifeand my younger sister who was actually reading in her bedroom,she was reading. MS KHAMPEPE:: What time was it on 7 October when thesepeople came to visit you? ANSWER:: I would say around, between 10 and 11. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman, we can deal withthe next incident, that is the incident pertaining to Father Makatshwa. The incident appears on page 311 of Captain Hechter's application. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter on page 312 of your applicationyou give the particulars of the event with regard to Father Makatshwa,could you read this to us? If you want to add anything Captain,please do so. "Father Makatshwa was in Soshunguwe, a very prominent figure,also a well known figure amongst the youth and a person well-knownto the security police due to his involvement in politics. Hewas a powerful supporter of the ANC and Father Makatshwa was alsoa widely-read person, well-read into the purposes of the Communist'smovement. In that time during the 1980's he was very activeamongst the youth, involved in school boycotts and other boycotts. In terms of the information available to us he was also involvedin the providing of housing to terrorists as these moved or travelledfrom one place to another. Because of his incitement of theyouth there were many incidents of arson involving the youth. Since Father Makatshwa was indeed a thorn in our flesh, a decisionwas made at a higher level to eliminate him. We approached ourtechnical section in the security police and had two rifles preparedwith the appropriate rounds. The one was a 308 which then usedthe same rounds as an R1 and the other was a 22 rifle, both ofthese were provided with..." QUESTION:: If you could just wait a moment, you havereferred that Mr Makatshwa was well-read in Communist literature,could you expand on your claim? ANSWER:: At a previous time, our unit in co-operationwith the riot unit visited Father Makatshwa's home. In his roomit was striking to me that the Bishop kept in his room next tohis bed, a very small Bible and behind a curtain on the wall he had a book-rack in which he had Communist books by Lenin,Engels, books on counter-espionage, espionage, books on terrorism. Father Makatshwa knew about revolutionary and counter-revolutionaryactions. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter I was just informed that heis Father Makatshwa and not Bishop Makatshwa. ANSWER:: That is the case, my apologies Father. QUESTION:: Did you think he was a Bishop, you keep referringto him as Bishop? ANSWER:: Chair I'm a member of the Dutch Reformed ChurchI know very little of other churches, for me a Bishop or a Fatherwould be the same kind of thing, I don't know. QUESTION:: (Inaudible - not translated). ANSWER:: At that time yes I knew very little, 10 yearslater I know more. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter the actions in which FatherMakatshwa was involved with regard to youth, can you rememberwith regard to this information whether any of these youths wereinvolved in criminal activities or serious acts of terror? ANSWER:: Mr Chair as I said we reacted on reports by ourinformation sources, if these reports were available I could giveyou an honest answer with documentary proof. At this stage Ihave to deduce that this would have been the only reason why itwas decided that Father Makatshwa had to be eliminated, that itmust have been due to his involvement with youth and their violentactions subsequently. That would have been the only way in whichto neutralise such violent actions. QUESTION:: Could you continue Captain? "...Father Makatshwa's telephone at that time had beenbugged by the security police and because of this and becauseof access to the phones of other prominent activists, it was possibleto obtain information that Father Makatshwa at a particular daywould have arrived at Durban airport. From where he would havearrived I cannot remember, I cannot remember whether this waslocal or international travel but we made preparations to eliminatehim at the airport in Durban. The arms were already preparedat that time because of the information received. With a Kombiwhich I can no longer remember the model or colour, I can rememberthat there were curtains in front of the windows, we screenedthe inside of the Kombi with curtains and there was also a curtainin between the seat of the driver and the back of the vehicle. Very early that morning we departed at a time I can no longerremember and I can no longer remember what time Father Makatshwawas supposed to arrive, we had his flight number and the timeof arrival. We arrived in Durban, I can remember that we arrived...(endof side 2)...clear view of the main exit of the Durban airport. At a certain point, Father Makatshwa who was very well knownto us, we saw him leaving the exit but he was, there were oneor two people in between us and him all the time, there was someor other woman and possibly two men, one or two men but I couldbe mistaken. There was a woman in front of him all the time. As they came closer to the Kombi we were parked in such a way that we had a clear viewwith which to shoot. It was very dark inside the vehicle andas Father Makatshwa walked closer and became ever clearer, thiswoman was in between him and us all the time which meant thatwe could not fire on him. Mr Van Vuuren who grew up on a farmwould have been the shot. Subsequently when he had passed us,we decided that we would follow him to see if we could not eliminatehim along the road with an AK-47 rifle. What happened however,was that he entered a particular vehicle, I cannot remember atall what kind of vehicle, what colour of vehicle or how many peoplewere in the vehicle, but I can remember that when you leave theairport, (apologies), you had a toll-road through which you hadto exit and where you had to pay. The vehicle in which FatherMakatshwa was driving left through the toll-road and then a personbetween us and him had some trouble to find the ticket with whichto pay at the toll-gate and then Father Makatshwa drove off. By the time we had paid to leave the toll-road, we could no longersee his vehicle, or it was no longer available. We drove overa bridge and if I remember correctly, the bridge had a road goingtowards the South Coast, one to the North Coast and one to theblack township and we did not know in which direction Father Makatshwahad driven, so we decided that that would be the end of the matter. We then took the North Coast road towards Durban and then QUESTION:: Captain who gave you the instruction to eliminateFather Makatshwa? ANSWER:: Captain Loots called us in at that time and GeneralBasie Smit was our Commanding Officer. I was called in and toldthat it was decided that Father Makatshwa had to be eliminated. Neither of them was there Chair. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, the question is when you receivedyour instruction, who was present? ANSWER:: My apologies Chair, Captain Loots gave me theinstruction directly claiming that it came from General BasieSmit and that it was to say that it was at that level. CaptainLoots for the interest of it was my direct Commanding Officer,my immediate superior. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter you also explained a furtherevent in your application, could you explain this to the Committee? ANSWER:: At a later stage, the exact time is somewhatvague to me at this time, but I think it was early in the nextyear then Brigadier Smit gave instructions to myself and W/O PaulVan Vuuren calling us to his office, and being aware of our covertoperations, called us to his office and gave us instructions toplant a quantity of Mandrax tablets on Bishop, or on Father Makatshwaand that we had to force some down his throat so that it wouldappear as if he died from an overdose. Myself and W/O Van Vuurenreturned to my office, discussed the matter, and decided thatat that time General Smit was new, he'd only been at the Branchfor a couple of months, and after the previous fiasco I did nottrust his approach, his modus operandi. I discussed thiswith W/O Van Vuuren and told him that this might pass that we had to just wait and see what happened. The passage of timedoes pose a problem but sometime later, possibly two weeks ora month I cannot remember exactly, I was called in or both myselfand W/O Van Vuuren were called in by General Smit or then BrigadierSmit and he asked me to what extent we had prepared in this regard. I then told him that I did not think that I would want to continuein this kind of operation and that I don't want to be part ofthis game any longer. There was a big explosion in the office. The Brigadier was very angry to such an extent that he transferredme from this Unit to a unit known as the, this was a unit in whichwe had to decide which people were appropriate for the SecurityBranch and I, and Paul was made into a driver who had to lookafter General Smit and he had to look after his garden, work inhis garden whenever there was work necessary. In this way ouroperations at the Security Branch came to a complete halt. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter could this instruction havebeen carried out, realistically speaking? ANSWER:: It was highly unlikely since at great dangerto ourselves we would have had to intercept and kidnap FatherMakatshwa, we would then have had to force these pills with greatviolence down his throat. Anyone with some experience knowsyou can't just push pills down someone's throat. In my viewand out of my experience this instruction was not logically andrealistically possible and that's why I believe that this wasnot the right way to go about it. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. The rifles, who ANSWER:: At the Security Branch we had a technical sectionwhere specialised and technically trained persons worked and someof these persons prepared the firearms for us. QUESTION:: ...told as to the specifications of the weaponsyou wanted? ANSWER:: That was unnecessary to inform them what exactlythe weapons were to be prepared, what they did know was that Ineeded this for the purpose of elimination and that the targetand the date, well that was not known to them, they did not needto know that. QUESTION:: What I'm trying to ask you is these two weapons,did you, did anybody give the technical team specifications ofthe weapons, in other words how must it look, how must it be? ANSWER:: No, I prepared the specifications personally,whether we would use the 308 or .22 rifle. I have some technicalbackground and knowledge of firearms. I decided that we wouldneed a 308 or a .22 rifle, depending on the circumstances. Inthe case of close range it would be a .22 or 308 for a furtherdistance, we were not quite sure at that time of our preparationsat what distance we would have to fire. QUESTION:: Yes positively so Chair. QUESTION:: What other weapons did you have in your possession? ANSWER:: Remembering correctly, the AK-47 I can remember,it might have been that we also had our official police firearmspresent, a 9mm pistol, I couldn't swear that but I can swear withregard to the two rifles as well as the AK-47 but I do imagine that we might have had the other arms at thattime. QUESTION:: ...for the AK-47 to carry out the job? ANSWER:: Chair yes we could have used the AK-47 but doput yourself in our position, we are attempting to eliminate aman. Had we shot him with the .22 then no-one would have knownfrom where we had shot because of the buffer on the firearm, wewould simply have been able to drive out calmly, like normal people,and no one would have imagined that the shot would have come fromour vehicle. If, however, we had used the AK-47 then the policeat the airport would immediately have acted and most likely alsosome of the surrounding individuals, simply if only by runningtowards the scene and that would have made our escape possibilityso much more limited. QUESTION:: ...was a thorn in your flesh and further thatyou knew where he lived, why was it necessary for the operationto be done in Durban then? ANSWER:: The further away from one's own home this happened,the less likely it would have been for one to be caught out. If we eliminated him right there, the investigation would havehappened right there and the possibility to link this to us inPretoria would have been less likely. QUESTION:: ...self and W/O Van Vuuren who went with youto Durban? ANSWER:: It was only myself and W/O Van Vuuren. QUESTION:: ...where is Rev Makatshwa's house? ANSWER:: At this moment unfortunately no longer, I knowhe lived in Shoshunguwe. At that time 10 years ago, as I havealready mentioned, I visited his home on several occasions as well as his church, I know that he used to live next to thechurch and we visited him there. I would have difficulty infinding, or rather would not be able to find the church again. QUESTION:: ...church premises, it's not next to the church. ANSWER:: I wouldn't be able to argue with you in thisregard, but if I remember correctly they would have been nextto each other. If you tell me they were one building, I wouldbelieve that I wouldn't be able to argue with you in this regard. QUESTION:: You are not understanding one another, he issaying that the house is next to the church but in the same property. There isn't two separate sites, it's a single erf with a singlesay fence around it. ANSWER:: That's exactly what I understood but I cannotremember whether there is a single fence around the two, I'm onlysaying they are next to each other, it could be like two houseswithout a fence in between. I simply can't swear around it,it's too long ago. QUESTION:: Mr Chair if I remember correctly, three orfour times yes, three or four times, no less than that. QUESTION:: Did you ever find any ANC activists en routeto some place in his house? ANSWER:: No but I did find young men in his house, butnot known activists. We once found a firearm for which he didnot have a licence but at a later stage, two or three weeks later,we received a letter that he had the weapon for safekeeping. Then, as I have already told you, we found this literature inhis house on communist activities, terrorism, counter-intelligence. The conclusion I made, I came to, together with the source reports was that Father Makatshwawas involved in general, in the general unrest in Shoshunguwe. QUESTION:: ...supplied with this information and you didnot verify the correctness thereof? ANSWER:: No Mr Chair, it has already been testified thatwe never reacted on only the information we received from onesource, we always verified the information we received throughother sources. We also had a churches' section like the blackpower section, the C section where the much talked about "Vlakplaas"resorted under, we also had the churches' section and they broughtit to our attention that Father Makatshwa was very much involvedin especially the schools' unrest, the consumer boycotts and thegeneral unrest in Soshunguwe. QUESTION:: ...information about Rev Makatshwa's operationsthere? ANSWER:: Can I please correct you, I am only a Captainnot a Colonel, I apologise for your...we reacted to source reportsbasically. If I had to guess I would say that the Security Branchhad approximately 500 sources in the community. I believe thatCol Loots could verify this or could correct me, but I don't thinkthere were any fewer than 500 informants. These informants wereinfiltrated into various areas and they were tasked to monitorhigh figures and prominent activists for us, to attend meetingsand to come as close as possible to this specific target of ours,not specifically for elimination but only for monitoring them. To come as close as possible to the person to be able to reporthis movements to us so that we could try to take preventive actionor to plan further QUESTION:: ...to an organisation? ANSWER:: Mr Chair yes I used to be a member of the NationalParty. At this stage I am not a member of them anymore and Ibasically don't want to have anything to do with them. QUESTION:: ...operations were you still a member of theNational Party? QUESTION:: ...position in National Party? ANSWER:: As a member of the Security Forces it was not,we were not allowed to participate in politics actively, our participationwent as far as voting. QUESTION:: ...did you believe in the policies and theworkings of the National Party then? ANSWER:: At that stage definitely, I definitely believedin it, I grew up with it and I stood by it. The ANC and theSACP were my enemies, Cosatu and the UDF were my enemies as welland I fought them as far as I could. QUESTION:: Were you carrying them out on behalf of theSecurity Force or on behalf of the National Party. ANSWER:: Mr Chair the Security Police were the NationalParty's iron fist who enforced its policies. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE QUESTION:: You say in your statement that you did notfulfil your task because you did not trust the Commander? ANSWER:: General Smit was a new person in the branch,relatively a new person. As in any organisation there were largerand smaller people and there were all sorts of rumours. It waswidely known that General Smit was someone who easily steppedon those under him in order to rise in the organisation, I wasnot entirely happy at that time to take instructions of this nature from or to carry out such instructions,and I did not trust him sufficiently. QUESTION:: Did you know at that time that General Smitplayed a role against certain policemen who were arrested? ANSWER:: At that time, it was just after the cases ofCaptain Le Grange and I believe Sgt Van der Merwe there were rumoursat that time with regard to all sorts of underhanded ways in whichthese persons were handed over. QUESTION:: ...Rev Makatshwa that day were three events. First lady this lady was continuously in front of him all thetime. Then somebody lost or misplaced his parking ticket. Then the road divided into two? ANSWER:: That's quite correct Chair, he is a lucky man. QUESTION:: He is a man of God. ANSWER:: He was a very lucky person and I don't know towhat extent it led to my battles with General Smit, a person whowas this lucky, deserves it. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...the failure to carry out the operationto kill Father Makatshwa? ANSWER:: On my return I reported this operation to CaptLoots, what he did with this information I presume was that hereported upwards in this regard but I would not be sure what hedid with it. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...discussion by Capt Loots of the needto eliminate Father Makatshwe by taking other actions other thanthe ones that had failed? ANSWER:: Chair it's very difficult at this point to takemy thoughts back 10 years and to tell you what exactly we discussedor how we felt when we returned at that time when we returnedto our offices. If I were to tell you that I reported back thiswould be the normal procedure, you would report back whether you had been successful or unsuccessful. The exact course of events I cannot tell you, I assume that Imust have informed him what happened and that he would have reportedback to then Brigadier Smit. Unfortunately I can't help youin this regard. JUDGE WILSON:: These rifles, as I understand from yourapplication were fitted with silencers and sub-sonic cartridgesso they would have made very little noise? JUDGE WILSON:: Did you know that Brigadier Basie Smitwhen he made this suggestion to you about pills, had been in thenarcotics department for some time? ANSWER:: I knew this and it appeared somewhat discomfortingto me. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman could I be afforded the opportunityto ask one question to the witness, it's a question that I didnot ask right at the start? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Captain Hechter we've made no testimony availablewith regard to your political motivation which was the same inevery case. Was the political motivation for your action withregards to Father Makatshwa the same as with regard to the previousincident? ANSWER:: That is positively the case Chair, we could notarrest him, could not dare to arrest him, especially not in Shoshunguwe. If we were to then release him there he would have been ableto harm the Government of the day to such an extent. At thattime he had already mobilised youth, if he had been detained therewould have been mass mobilisation possible. QUESTION:: Would you then confirm the correctness of your political motivation as mentioned in your application? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I then beg leave to call W/OPaul Van Vuuren on the same. You will find that on page 74 ofthe application. Mr Chairman if I could perhaps apply againfor an amendment in respect of the deeds? The reference to "Regsverydeling"there should not be included and what should be included is "Oortredingsingevolge die Wet op Wapens en Ammunisie". There shouldbe a mention with regard to transgressions with regard to theAct regarding Weapons and Ammunition and not obstruction of justice. PAUL JACOBUS JOHANSEN VAN VUUREN (ss) QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren you were present to here thetestimony of Captain Hechter, is that correct? QUESTION:: I'm not going to ask you to repeat this testimonyword for word. Would you agree to his testimony? ANSWER:: I agree with his testimony. QUESTION:: Is there any aspects Mr Van Vuuren which youwould want to add to the testimony of Captain Hechter? ANSWER:: No particular evidence, no. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: Is the position he merely confirms the evidencethat has been given? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman I don't, unless the Committeewants Mr Van Vuuren to give his specific version, I can do thatbut he has given an indication that he confirms the same version. I'm in the Committee's hands in that regard Mr Chairman, I'mjust trying to save time. QUESTION BY MEMBER OF COMMITTEE QUESTION:: You were involved in both the incidents referred QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren also with respect to the aspectsemphasised by Captain Hechter in his cross-examination which youagreed to his answers to those questions in cross-examination? ANSWER:: Yes I would agree with is or confirm his testimony. CHAIRMAN:: As far as you were concerned, where did yourinstructions come from? ANSWER:: My instructions normally came from Lt or nowCaptain Hechter and Capt or now Major or now Col Loots. ANSWER:: I was accountable to Capt Hechter. JUDGE WILSON:: In your application you referred to thisincident when you were told to eliminate the priest by givinghim Mandrax tablets, do you remember that? JUDGE WILSON:: And you said you then discussed this withMajor Loots, is that so? JUDGE WILSON:: But you didn't come to any decision whenor how he should be eliminated? ANSWER:: Major Flip Loots at that time told us to simplyleave the matter until another occasion, when another occasionbecame available. JUDGE WILSON:: ...report back to Brigadier Basie Smit? JUDGE WILSON:: There was then an argument or extreme strongwords between Captain Hechter and General Smit? JUDGE WILSON:: ...his investigation into Captain Le Grangeand Sgt Van der Merwe? ANSWER:: No that's not correct. JUDGE WILSON:: ...that we do not trust him after his investigationwith regard to Captain Jack Le Grange and Sgt Van der Merwe. ANSWER:: That is the case, that is why we didn't trusthim but that's not what we argued about. Captain Hechter andBrigadier Smit at that time argued over the manner in which FatherMakatshwa was to be eliminated, specifically with regard to theMandrax tablet. At that time, Captain Hechter did not considerthe operation worth continuing. Brigadier Basie Smit wanted to know why we did not want to continuewith the operation and there was an argument between him and CaptainHechter in this regard. QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren when you said you stand by theevidence of Captain Hechter, are you saying to us that what hehas told us disclosed everything? ANSWER:: As far as I know I have nothing to add to this. QUESTION:: Were the windows of the Kombi covered in anyway? ANSWER:: If I remember correctly there were curtains infront of the windows. Yes, it might have been that the windowsmight have been slightly tinted with certain material which Idon't know of. QUESTION:: ...things like (indistinct). ANSWER:: This is 10 years ago Your Honour I can't rememberwhether it was the case or not. QUESTION:: ...your application is what you are not sureof, is that what you are telling us? ANSWER:: No this is not the case, I am certain of that which stands in my application. MR MPSHE:: ...of your application, the third paragraph "...the minibus had tinted windows." ANSWER:: Chair the minibus had tinted windows and therewere curtains on the inside of the vehicle. JUDGE Ngoepe:: You and Captain Hechter were travellingin the same Kombi, the fact that the windows were blackened outand there were curtains would be known by both of you? ANSWER:: This is very long ago Chair I cannot tell youexactly, I can remember that there were curtains and I can rememberthat the windows were tinted. JUDGE Ngoepe:: Don't suppose(?) my question, I'm sayingif you and Captain Hechter travelled in the same Kombi and ifthat Kombi's windows were blackened or darkened, both of you shouldhave known of that aspect not so? JUDGE Ngoepe:: ...Captain Hechter never mentioned thefact that the windows were blackened out? JUDGE Ngoepe:: ...but I believe when counsel said to usthat it may not be necessary to take this witness detail by detail,I think he did that in good faith trying to assist us as not toconsume time unduly and I think he was really saying in broadterms. Unless the difference is of earth-shattering importanceI don't think it is fair to tax a witness on that, to look for,I'm not saying differences which are of importance must not beelicited, but I'm saying that one should bear in mind that thatcourse was adopted not as a way of trying to avoid the witnessfrom giving details, but as a convenient way of trying to dealwith an application which deals with exactly the same incident, peoplewho were exactly together exactly in the same vehicle. I'm sayingthat it may not be fair to tax a witness as if the purpose wasfor the witness to hide some information. I think it was donein good faith to expedite proceedings. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Thank you, I stand indebted Mr Chairman andmembers of the Committee. Warrant Officer, before you couldgive evidence an application was made by your legal representativethat another offence or act or omission be added namely underthe Arms and Ammunition Act, what is that which you know thatyou have done that you are asking for amnesty for in regard ofthis offence? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I, for the first timeduring these hearings, object to this question. The witnessis not a legal expert, anybody who knows that Act knows exactlyhow many offences are contained in that Act, how technical theyare and it is surely unfair to ask the witness to answer specificallyto which specific offence he is applying for amnesty. That iswhy it was stated in broad terms, offences in terms of the Armsand Ammunition Act. JUDGE WILSON:: But if we are to grant amnesty we mustsurely know what specific offence he's asking for amnesty for? CHAIRMAN:: That's the point, there's been no evidenceon that, it might have been appropriate had you led that bit ofevidence because right now none of us know what that particularoffence relates to, what incident, what date, where. MR DU PLESSIS:: Right Mr Chairman then I will be forcedto amend the applications to refer specifically to the specificSections of that Act and I will do so tomorrow. JUDGE WILSON:: I mean if you tell us, is it the AK-47,is it the 308, is it the 22? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes it deals with all three. CHAIRMAN:: In other words it was that particular incident? CHAIRMAN:: Well I think that perhaps Mr Mpshe was reallythinking about that. MR DU PLESSIS:: I'm sorry then I misunderstood the effector the intention of his question. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I neednow guidance here, I intend to abandon that on the basis of whatmy learned friend has disclosed that it is in respect of the AK-47and the other two pistols, is that the position? QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Warrant Officer areyou a member of any political organisation or party now? ANSWER:: No I am not a member of any political organisationYour Honour. QUESTION:: At the time of carrying out these operationswere you a member of any political organisation or party? ANSWER:: No I was not a member of any political organisationat that time, I did however vote for the National Party. QUESTION:: ...you did that is the operations, in yourown mind for whom were you doing these operations or carryingthem out? ANSWER:: Chair I believed in what I did and I believedthat it was done with the purpose of maintaining the Governmentof the day, then the National Party, in power, to maintain itscounter-revolutionary campaigns, to counter the ANC and communism. This is what I believed at that time. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I beg your pardon, may I beafforded the opportunity of asking one further question to thewitness? MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Mr Van Vuuren can I please take you to page77 of your application? Judge Wilson asked you about the sentence"a severe argument ensued between Captain Hechter and GeneralSmith" because Captain Hechter told General Smit that wecould not continue with the operation because we did not trusthim. Was that sentence meant to, was the reference to Capt LeGrange and Sgt Van der Merwe were part of the operation and that'swhy you did not want to go on with the operation? ANSWER:: No, the reason was the way in which General Smitwanted us to perform the operation. The problem regarding CaptainLe Grange and Sgt Van der Merwe was discussed between us. QUESTION:: Was this problem specifically discussed withGeneral Smit? ANSWER:: No it was not, not when I was there. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR DU PLESSIS:: I can give you the specific Sections ofthe Arms and Ammunitions Act under which the possession of these guns might fall. It is Act 75 1969 and the Sections are Section2, Section 36, Section 32(1)(a) and Section 32(1)(e). Thankyou Mr Chairman. MEMBER OF COMMITTEE:: Could you perhaps help us and tellus what they say is it about the fact of possession or the baffleson the guns? MR DU PLESSIS:: It's primarily about possession. I cansay that I was helped in this regard by somebody who gave me theinformation. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I wasinformed that the hearing adjourns at 4 o'clock Mr Chairman, butMr Chairman I was going to make an application that seeing thatReverend Makatshwa is present that I ask for the indulgence ofthe Committee to hear Rev Makatshwa today and now Mr Chairmanif that is permissible? CHAIRMAN:: In the meanwhile Mr Mpshe and Du Plessis weare going to give our ruling tomorrow morning at 9:30 on the applicationyou made at the commencement of the proceedings on the questionof subpoenaing of certain State witnesses and the informationcontained in the dockets. Will you be so kind enough to informthe Attorney-General's representative as well that that rulingwill be given tomorrow morning at 9:30? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman there is a representativeof their office here in this chamber at this point in time. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Du Toit you heard what we said, you areaware that there was an application made on Monday morning, youwere there, very well. Our decision in connection with that application will be given at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Thankyou. QUESTION:: Mr Mkhatshwa will you give the Committee yourfull names please? QUESTION:: Can I correctly address you as Reverend? QUESTION:: Rev Mkhatshwa what is your occupation at thismoment? ANSWER:: I am a Catholic priest but who also happens tobe a Deputy-Minister of Education. QUESTION:: Before being a Deputy-Minister of Education,were you in full-time services of the Lord as a Catholic priest? QUESTION:: Before that what were you doing? ANSWER:: Well I've always been, well after my ordinationto the priesthood, I've always been in the services of the Lord,I spent about 18 years in Shoshunguwe as a pastor and thereafterI worked at the Institute for Contextual(?) Theology for fiveyears until I was elected to Parliament in 1994. QUESTION:: Reverend you were present in the hearing todayand the other days and you had the opportunity of reading throughthe application about you. Do you have any comment to make onthis application? ANSWER:: Very briefly Chairperson, I'm not going to commenton the two incidents that the applicants referred to for the simplereason that I heard this information practically for the firsttime today when I read the affidavits, so there is very little for me to say about that because I really didn't know. All that I can say at this stage is that my Gods, my ancestorsare very powerful indeed and also thanks to the community becauseI would imagine that by and large I am still in one piece todaybecause of the support that I received from the community. Ithink Captain Hechter has made reference to that, indirectly atleast. What I would like to say very briefly, I would like torefer to the evidence that was given here referring to me as someonewho supported terrorism and communism and all the other "isms"that you can think of, which the apartheid regime totally hatedand was totally opposed to. I just want to put the record straightand point out that I certainly was never a terrorist, whateverthat meant, neither did I keep terrorist literature in my house,in my library. The fact that I did read literature that madereference also to say to Marxism and so forth that does not inany way make one a communist or even a Marxist for that matter. I believe that in my profession, in my vocation as a priest,if I have to make effective ministry to the people of God, I needto be fully informed about the lives of my people, the sufferingsof my people and other nations that found themselves in a similarsituation. That I also needed to be informed about economicand political issues generally and that is the reason why I hadto read as broadly as possible otherwise it becomes very difficultto minister, meaningfully, to the people of God. Let me alsojust say very briefly that when I came in here the first time,which I think was the Thursday or Friday when the hearings waspostponed, when I moved into the hall and saw the five gentlemenfor the first time and when Captain Hechter stood up and stretchedout his hand I had ambivalent feelings. The first feeling was one ofuncertainty, of hesitation but also of deep scepticism, for thesimple reason that the last time I think when Captain Hechterand I met he had a gun in his hand pointed at my forehead. Doorswere broken down, that's how he, Capt Loots and others gainedentry, but that's not an issue for me now, but I'm just sayingthat that was my first response when he stretched out his hand. In the same time, because of my deep-felt belief as a Christian,but because also of the policy of the Government of National Unity,the main emphasis on reconciliation and building a new nation,my second sentiments immediately said to me stretch out your handand meet Captain Hechter. I shook hands with all the other gentlemenand for me it was a very strange feeling. Also when I, I hopethis is not relevant Chairperson I'm just trying to put the thingin context, but also when I saw Brigadier Cronje I also rememberedbecause they made reference to the church having been membersof their church and so forth, I remember an incident when he andhis troops of 25, 30 of them stormed into my house, early as usual12:30 or 1 o'clock in the morning, forced me to, at least frog-marchedme into my church with their hats on, smoking, and I said veryclearly I remember I said to Brigadier Cronje you may not haverespect for me as an individual, that's your democratic right,but as a Christian you ought to respect the house of God. Beforethey left the church, they forced me to open the tabernacle whichthey threatened to blow up. Those of you who are Catholics youknow what a tabernacle is, and how we regard that. Finally asa compromise I opened it myself and they looked inside and theydidn't find what they thought they would find. There again I shook his hand, I took his hand and I said as long asthe five gentlemen are now prepared to help all of us to builda new country, to take the issue of social justice very seriously,no longer just as rhetoric but as something that all of us haveto work for based on the spirit and policy of reconciliation,I say I'm prepared to take his hand and not to doubt his bonafides. So these are just a few comments I wanted to makeChairperson so that in other words I'm saying that I'm not goingto refer to other incidents that happened which probably thesegentlemen may not have been informed or maybe not have been awareof because then I would be in a much better position actuallyreally to testify to something that I personally experienced,even though I was blindfolded and all the rest of it, somethingI could say something much more concrete about that. We arejust dealing here with the situation of incidents that I was notaware of but only just say a few words in very broad terms aboutthe situation that existed and my attitude. Thank you. MR MPSHE:: Reverend do I understand you to be saying thatby shaking hands with the gentlemen you sort of accept their forgiveness? ANSWER:: Yes Chairperson, my assumption, I'm putting itvery carefully, my assumption is that this is not just an exercisein trying to qualify for amnesty, that there is a genuine desireon the part of the five gentlemen to show repentance for whatthey have done, but also to go further because as Mr Tibedi pointedout, that what is even much more important is something that needsto be done in terms of reparation beyond this exercise here. By reparation I'm not really spelling out exactly what form thatcould take, I personally as an example would be delighted if one day, oneSunday, Captain Hechter, W/O Van Vuuren would go to my congregationthat I have served for 18 years in Shoshunguwe and for them tosay to the people there that yes we certainly are genuinely sorryabout what happened. We are the people who made the life ofyour priest, your pastor, hell, for me that...(end of side 2)...especiallyto the victims, especially to those who suffered even worse thanourselves. As an example for instance, if Captain Hechter andhis colleagues perhaps could pay their school fees, I'm just makinga suggestion, an example, I'm not saying that they should necessarilydo that, spare the school fees of one of the children of theirvictims who may be going to school these days. It's just asan example. QUESTION:: Reverend we know perhaps knowing this, we havethat arrangement in the form of a rehabilitation and reparationcommittee that is taking care of. Is that all that you wantedto say? ANSWER:: Yes that's all. As I say, I was talking aboutthem as individuals not just the State doing certain things onbehalf, that's really what I'm really talking about. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE CHAIRMAN:: You've come here to give evidence about twoincidents of which you knew nothing about until you read the papersthis morning, is that it? CHAIRMAN:: Well now, since you are here and since thesegentlemen are here, are you aware of any other incidents whichthey have not talked about in which you may have been involvedor implicated? ANSWER:: Yes Chairperson, on 21 and 22 August in 1986,I was abducted, abducted by two gentlemen that I really don't knowbecause I was blindfolded, handcuffed and driven to an unknownplace because I couldn't see it and I was kept there for two daysand I was abused and tortured continuously. Now I can only guessthat when certain questions were put to me during the interrogation,I can almost suspect that perhaps certain voices might have belongedto some of these gentlemen, but that is really almost irrelevantin the sense that that is guesswork because you just asked aboutincidents generally. It may well be that they might have beeninvolved in those incidents, I don't know. CHAIRMAN:: Apart from that incident there is no otherspecific occurrence which, to your knowledge, one of the applicantsor all of them were involved? ANSWER:: Not to my knowledge Chairperson except just toadd again that I think Captain Hechter was quite correct in sayingthat he visited, he and his colleagues visited me at the usualungodly hour very early on the morning on more than three occasionsand certainly at that time I must say I got an impression, rightlyor wrongly, that Captain Hechter in particular almost hated mewith a passion because of the way in which he behaved towardsme during those incidents. But apart from that I'm not awareof any other incident in which they were specifically involved. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mkhatshwa, FatherMkhatshwa I beg your pardon, you probably have seen the flurryof reaction amongst the applicants when you mentioned the interrogation. I can put it to you that the applicants have informed me thatthey were not involved in the abduction and interrogation themselves. They, however, know exactly who is responsible for it and they can give you moreinformation about that. They have instructed me to say to youthat as far as, according to their knowledge, military intelligencewas involved in that incident and that it had to do with an actionyou instituted against the South African Defence Force. Thatis as far as I can enlighten you in respect of that. They havegiven me instructions to tell you that it wasn't them and thatthey weren't involved in that specific abduction and interrogation. Father Mkhatshwa I must also say that when you spoke about yourreaction to the applicants when they stretched out their handsto you, I actually felt that every South African in this roomwho heard those words from you can seriously believe that thereis a chance for reconciliation in this country. I want to sayto you specifically, and I say that on behalf of all five of theapplicants, that they have a genuine intention and wish to havereconciliation in this country. They have the utmost respectfor you for what you have said now here in this room, and thatthey will be prepared to discuss with you possibilities raisedby you in respect of reparation and in respect of for instancevisiting the congregation. I say that on behalf of all fiveof the applicants and I want to ask you one last question FatherMkhatshwa, in the light of what you said, do you accept that theapplicants are before this Committee, after you've heard the evidencefrom the start and after you've heard the opening statement ofthe applicants, do you accept that the applicants are before thisCommittee bona fide and honestly in a search for the truthand for reconciliation? ANSWER:: Chairperson, as I have already said that I haveno reason to doubt their bona fides, however, let me alsopoint out that as a member of the African National Congress weare also handling the question of amnesty, reconciliation in adefinite particular way, but it is certainly in a very positiveway. It is a commitment to making sure that reconciliation,genuine reconciliation becomes a reality. So my attitude is (1)openness and readiness to genuinely accept a brother, a sister,as fellow South Africans who says from now onwards I'm preparedto actively and genuinely begin to work for the building of anew nation, for a new country that is qualitatively differentfrom the old. In fact, I'm prepared to be actively involved inthe ongoing struggle against any legacies of apartheid, becauseit was apartheid, it was the system that reduced fellow humanbeings into almost killer machines. We are therefore saying ifreconciliation is to really mean anything at all, if it will havecontent, we must make sure that that system dies and is buriedpeacefully - maybe not so peacefully but that it is dead and buried. QUESTION:: Thank you Father Mkhatshwa. I may just mentionthat part of my argument will be that the applicants, and thatwas part of the opening statement and the evidence, that the applicantswere drawn into this whole system by the way they were broughtup, by the way they were taught certain beliefs, by the way theywere subject to propaganda and by the way they were dealt withby the N G Kerk. I am glad that you made that statement thatwill form part of my argument at the end of these hearings. Thank you very much. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: That brings to an end proceedings for todayMr Mpshe? MR MPSHE:: That is so Mr Chairperson. CHAIRMAN:: May we resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning? MR MPSHE:: Yes Mr Chairman that is possible. CHAIRMAN:: I have a note which says that the people incharge of security in this building would like everybody to usethe President Street entrance to this building, it would makethings easier for all concerned. Thank you, we will now adjournand resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN: At the commencement of these proceedings lastweek, Mr Du Plessis, who appears on behalf of the applicants,applied to the Committee for an order calling upon the State witnesses,Captain Van Jaarsveld and Sergeant D Gouws, Warrant OfficerOosthuizen and Warrant Officer J Mamasela, by notice in writingto appear at this hearing and to give evidence or to answer questionsrelevant to the subject matter before us. This was to be in accordancewith section 29(1)(c) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 14 of 1995. A criminal trial is pending in our Supreme Court against fourof the applicants and the abovementioned persons are known tobe State witnesses in that trial. The Committee was also requested to call upon the Attorney-Generalof the Transvaal in terms of section 29(1)(b) of the Act, tohand over the dockets of the inquiries made by the Attorney-Generalin respect of the applicants and the criminal trial. It is convenient to deal with the latter request first. It was submitted that the Attorney-General's docket contained certainstatements by State witnesses and that these would be of a materialimportance to the applicants in the application and it would assistthe Committee in obtaining the whole truth. Section 29(1)(b) gives the Committee a discretion which it mayexercise if, in its opinion, the contents of the Attorney-General'sdocket are relevant to the subject matter of this hearing. On the information placed before us we cannot say that the contentsof the dockets contain material relevant to the subject matter of the present hearing. In fact, no information whatsoever was advanced as to what they may contain apart from information relating to the pending prosecutionagainst the applicants. Because of this it is not possible for the Committee to forman opinion that its contents, namely the contents of the docketare relevant for the present hearing. This application can therefore not succeed. In respect of the first application, the one to subpoena Statewitnesses, it was submitted that it is reasonable, necessaryand justifiable in an open and democratic society based upon freedomand equality that witnesses who could provide material informationand corroboration of the truth of the applicants' applications,should not be prohibited to give evidence. The Truth Commission forms part of the democratic South Africa. The Committee was requested to exercise its discretion in termsof section 31(2) of the Act, which deals, inter alia, withthe compellability of witnesses. It was argued by counsel forthe applicants that even State witnesses, namely the witnessesin the pending criminal trial, might be called to appear at thishearing and be compelled to answer questions provided that there has been consultation with the Attorney-General as required bysection 32(2)(a) and that the Committee has satisfied itselfthat to require such information from State witnesses is reasonable,necessary and justifiable in an open and democratic society basedon freedom and equality as provided in section 32(2)(b). It is argued that there is no provision in the Act which excludesState witnesses from the ambit of this Act, Mr Du Plessis said, that his clients were committed totell the truth at this hearing and that if the State witnessesare ordered to give evidence at this hearing their evidence, ifthey are truthful, will corroborate the applicants' case for thegrant of amnesty. The Attorney-General's representative strenuously opposed theapplication on the obvious ground that the State case againstthe applicants in the pending trial might be considerably impairedand compromised if State witnesses are compelled to answer questionsat this hearing. Their answers will afford applicants advanceknowledge of the evidence which they will face at their trial. In the light of the attitude of the Attorney-General, therehas to be other compelling reasons before an order can be made. As things stand at present, no information is placed before usto indicate the nature of the evidence which the applicants hopeto obtain from the State witnesses. All we have is a vague expressionof belief that the evidence of the State witnesses will offersome corroboration to the applicants in their evidence in thishearing. The Committee does not feel persuaded by the argument advancedon behalf of the applicants. The application to subpoena theState witnesses is therefore refused. MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. MR MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as I haveindicated to the Committee members in Chambers, the matters thatwe are going to deal with this morning, we are going to commencewith the third one, that is Makope, Maake and Sefola killings,Mr Chairman. But I was approached by my colleague yesterday,Mr Brian Currin, that he would wish first to recall Brig Cronje,for cross-examination. That I leave to the discretion of theCommittee. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps I could just alludeto that. Mr Currin approached me as well in this regard. Hewill address the Committee on the reasons therefor. I can saythat we do not particularly have a problem with that, except thefact that Brig Cronje is then going to be called piecemeal. Thiswill be the second time that he will testify. He will be takenthen under cross-examination in respect of the general background,and then when he testifies again later on on his specific incidents,he will be taken under cross-examination again, and we feel thatthat is dealing with it piecemeal, Mr Chairman. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, maybe I can just motivate ourapplication to recall him for cross-examination. The cross-examinationof the applicants in regard to specific incidents will largelybe informed by the general background and the general motivationthat was provided by Brig Coetzee when he testified on behalfof all the applicants. In that motivation a lot was said aboutpolitical motive and about political objectives and the context. The questions that we put to individual applicants should notonly be informed by his evidence in chief, but also his totalevidence in regard to that submission. We have a number of questions whichwe would like to put to him which we believe will help to fleshout some of the ambiguities and uncertainties about certainlyour clients and we feel regarding that evidence. He is the personthat testified on behalf of the applicants so we would like tocross-examine him. We realise that his testimony was on behalfof all the applicants, which means that if any applicant wereto testify in regard to any of the incidents, and if one wereto start now with the Makope, Maake and Sefola killings, we wouldbe entitled to cross-examine those particular applicants regardingthat general evidence as well, but they didn't give the testimony,so we believe it would be right and correct to rather cross-examinethe person who gave that testimony. So that is really the reasonwhy we would like to cross-examine him on that before we proceedon cross-examination on specific incidents. CHAIRMAN: Mr Currin, it seems to be the view of the Committeethat we would not like to sets of cross-examination of a witnesswhere it can be avoided. This is a lengthy matter. There willbe enough time to put all that you wish to put to Brig Cronjeon the general evidence and on anything that you have that isspecific which will emerge no doubt from the evidence given bywitnesses to test whether what he has said under his general evidence is correct or not. So I think that it would be convenient forus to proceed on the basis that when Brig Cronje comes to giveevidence you will have all the opportunity to test his evidencein that regard. MR CURRIN: We accept that. Can I just ask one questionfor clarification? We would then like the first witness who testifies regarding these incidents under oath to confirm BrigCronje's testimony regarding the general background and we willthen cross-examine him on that general background, if that's inorder. CHAIRMAN: Whether you wish to cross-examine him and thencross-examine Cronje again and so on, is a matter in which somejudicial discretion must be exercised. We are not in a trialand cross-examination is not something which is unlimited, asyou no doubt know, and it may well be that you might have to curtailyour cross-examination of witnesses who are going to give evidenceon specific matters to those matters. Where evidence concerninggeneral behaviour of all the applicants is concerned, I thinkit would be prudent if you did leave that to Brig Cronje simplybecause when the proceedings started it was on the basis thatin order to save a great deal of time Brig Cronje would be allowedto give evidence on the general background. And I think in keepingwith that wish we would prefer it if we go along along those lines. I am not going to prevent you from cross-examining individualson specific instances, but if there is any point which you thinkit particularly germane then you may ask that. MR MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then I hand over tomy learned friend, Mr Chairman, to start with that matter of Makope,Maake and Sefola. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I make a request. Myattorney and I have been discussing this possibility and the wholequestion of cross-examination on the general background. Whatwe are a bit concerned about is that if Mr Currin intends tocross-examine and has specific general questions, which he is going to ask each and every witness, weare not sure if it might not be prudent to have Brig Cronje testifyfirst. CHAIRMAN: Well, if anything like that does happen andif Mr Cronje is going to give evidence, as we have assured counsel that he will, I do not think there need be any fear that therewill be very lengthy cross-examination of each of the applicants. MR DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Chairman, we don't really havea problem. We proceed. I then proceed to call Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren. Thisis in respect of the incident referred to as Andrew Makope, JacksonMaake and Harold Sefola. You will find it on page 96 of his application. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, page 79. Can you describe this event to the Commission and can you elaborateon anything you would like to? MR VAN VUUREN: Maake was an informant for the SecurityBranch. He was sent out and after three months he came back. He was questioned and he told us about his training. LieutenantHechter drew up the report and sent it to the headquarters. Accordingto him some of his instructions were from the police. Maake alsospoke of Alistair Makudu(?) who would have assisted him with theplanting of a bomb at the head office of the Security Police inPretoria. We determined this at a later point during the interrogationof Maake. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you wait for a moment. The Pretoriabomb to which there is reference, which incident was this exactly? MR DU PLESSIS 342 J J VAN VUUREN MR VAN VUUREN: This was the Kerkstraat or Church Streetbomb. MR DU PLESSIS: You may continue. MR VAN VUUREN: Captain Hechter and myself became scepticalabout the informant and no longer trusted him. On occasion hesimply came to our offices without our having requested it. Hisinstruction was particularly that he was not supposed to cometo our offices as he was an informant. We gained the notion thathe wanted to gain access to our offices. He was not concernedabout his identity and we decided to interrogate him. From adifferent informant's report we determined that he was a doubleagent for which reason we wanted to interrogate him. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I didn't take down the name of thisperson who was suspected to be a double agent. What is his name? MR VAN VUUREN: Prior to interrogation he was one of ourtrusted informants and we had made a vehicle available to himand arranged a driver's licence for him. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, could you give us some moreinformation about the report of the informant on Maake with regardto Maake being a double agent. Could you remember something moreabout this informant's report, than that he was a double agent? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you receive any confirmation at a laterstage that Maake was a double agent? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, this is correct. MR DU PLESSIS: You may continue. MR VAN VUUREN: During the interrogation we used a mobile MR DU PLESSIS 343 J J VAN VUUREN power point. This was 5 to 10 kilometres north of Messina. MRDU PLESSIS: How did you move Maake to this point of interrogation? MR VAN VUUREN: We had contacted him and he came to usand from there we went to the place of interrogation. MR DU PLESSIS: You may continue. MR VAN VUUREN: This was a yellow Robin power point. Thissends electrical power shocks through a person to convince theperson to give information. He admitted to being a double agentand told of an evening in Mmabatho where Ian Hechter was present. There was an operation planned with information available tohim to eliminate us. The reason of this was that we had a lotof information about ANC activists and had been a danger for them. Since we had booked in under other names they were not ableto track us down. During their interrogation it became clearthat his contact in Mamelodi was a certain Andrew Makope. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you wait there a moment. The generatorwhich was used, was this generator at the place of interrogationor did you take it along? MR VAN VUUREN: As far as I can remember it had been therealready. MR DU PLESSIS: Whose property was this? MR VAN VUUREN: The property belonged to the mine, PretoriaPortland Cement Mine. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you take any other equipment for interrogationalong? MR VAN VUUREN: Not at that moment. MR DU PLESSIS: What admissions did Maake make in additionto this, than that he was a double agent and the evening on whichthey planned to eliminate you? MR DU PLESSIS 344 J J VAN VUUREN MR VAN VUUREN: He told us who his contact person hadbeen and that he was supposed to plant a bomb in the SecurityBranch with Leicester Dumakudu, and that's the story. MR DU PLESSIS: Did he give you any information with regardto acts of terror in which he was involved? MR VAN VUUREN: He told us with which other active terrorhe was involved, but he was rather a courier who brought armsinto the country. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, with regard to the use ofthe generator, could you expand on this somewhat? MR VAN VUUREN: We used the generator to shock him. MR DU PLESSIS: For what length of time would the electricalshocks have gone through him as you used it? MR VAN VUUREN: I can't remember exactly, but it wouldbe a second or two. MR DU PLESSIS: Let me ask you the next question in thisway. Was Maake willing to give you answers or did you have touse the generator? MR VAN VUUREN: Maake denied that he was a double agentat the beginning, but after the interrogation his acts becameclear. MR DU PLESSIS: How many times did you need to give himelectrical shocks? MR VAN VUUREN: Approximately three times. MR DU PLESSIS: Over what period? MR VAN VUUREN: The interrogation lasted about an hour. MR DU PLESSIS: What kind of building did you use for the interrogation, could you explain that? MR VAN VUUREN: It was in the open air, it was in the bush. JUDGE WILSON: ... and who from? MR VAN VUUREN: The generator was on the property; itwas MR DU PLESSIS 345 J J VAN VUUREN used to pump water for cattle. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, before having moved to this property, did you know that there would be such a generator atthe property? MR VAN VUUREN: I knew that they used that generator forpumping water. MR DU PLESSIS: Please continue on page 99. Did you usethis property on many occasions? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I grew up in that area. I knew thearea very well. MR DU PLESSIS: For what purpose did you use this propertypreviously? MR VAN VUUREN: No, this was between the highway and theold Pienaarsrivier Road. It was simply an open piece of mine property where the cattle were grazing. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, you've given testimony thatduring the interrogation it appeared that his contact in Mamelodiwas Andrew Makope and after you gained this information fromhim what did you do next? MR VAN VUUREN: During the interrogation it became quiteclear that his contact in Mamelodi was Andrew Makope. We drewMakope's file and determined that he was an activist and a courierof the ANC. As far as I can remember, Freddie Legotke(?) wasan ANC member as well as an exile, a family member of Makope whowas living in Lusaka, Zambia at that time. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, did you leave Maake on theproperty when you drew the file or did you take him with? MR VAN VUUREN: No, we brought him with. MR DU PLESSIS: Where exactly did you draw this file? MR VAN VUUREN: We drew it at the Security Branch. MR DU PLESSIS 346 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: The information which you gained from thefile with regard to Makope, could you expand on this for the Committeewith regard to acts in which Makope was involved? MR VAN VUUREN: Makope's file had to do with arms whichentered the country and that he kept terrorists in hiding or assistedterrorists with hiding in Mamelodi, that he hid their arms, thathe transported them around. He was a logistics person for them. MR DU PLESSIS: Once you had this information available,what did you do next? MR VAN VUUREN: We decided to pick up Makope. We immediatelywent to Mamelodi and started to watch Makope. It was myself, CaptainHechter, Sergeant Mamasela, Constable Hendrik Mukaba and ConstableDanny Tshihlahle, known as Slang, if I remember correctly. Approximately10 o'clock that evening he entered his car which was indicatedto us by Maake. We pulled him off the road and as far as I canremember he was driving a blue Colt Galant although I am not exactlysure about this. We put Makope in our minibus and one of usfollowed with the Colt Galant. I believe this was Sergeant Mamasela. We left Maake and Makope at the property about 5km north ofthe Pienaarsrivier Dam and went home ourselves. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you stop there for a moment. Youtook Maake and Makope to the same property. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you then immediately interrogate Makopeor did you just leave him there? MR VAN VUUREN: Until the next day. We simply left him there until the next day. MR DU PLESSIS 347 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: Could you indicate to the Committee whatthe circumstances of Maake and Makope were, were they tied down? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we tied their hands and legs. MR DU PLESSIS: Could they lie down? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, they could lie down. MR DU PLESSIS: Did they have water? MR VAN VUUREN: We left them both water and food. If Iremember correctly, we bought this food at the Pienaarsriviershop. There is a little restaurant there at the corner and webought some food there. MR DU PLESSIS: What would they have done with this foodand water if their mouths were closed and their hands were tieddown? MR VAN VUUREN: We left Sergeant Mukaba and Sergeant Tshilahlewith them to help them with the water and food. MR DU PLESSIS: Were they inside or outside? MR VAN VUUREN: They were outside. MR DU PLESSIS: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. I must mention that therewas a small kind of zozo-hut which they were able to stay in butwhen Captain Hechter and myself left the property they were inthe open veld. Captain Hechter gave instructions that Slang andHendrik had to keep the prisoners inside the hut at a later stageafter they had eaten. MR DU PLESSIS: Where did you go after this? MR VAN VUUREN: We went home. The next morning we wentback to the property. At dawn Hechter, Mamasela and myself returnedto the property. We interrogated Makope in the same way we interrogatedMaake, that means we also gave him electrical shocks with thegenerator approximately three or MR DU PLESSIS 348 J J VAN VUUREN four times. His interrogation also took roughly an hour. Makopequickly made all the facts available. He told us that he wasMaake's linking person and that their head was a certain Braach(?)who lived in Witbank. He said that Braach was the person whogave the instructions. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you stop there for a moment. Whatexactly did Makope admit to you with regard to acts and actionsin which he was personally involved? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot exactly remember any more. Ican remember what kind of acts Mr Sefola was involved in butnot Mr Makope. MR DU PLESSIS: You may continue. MR VAN VUUREN: Makope said that Braach was the person who gave the instructions and Makope said that Legotka had adifficult time in Lusaka and Zambia, that he had to make clothesto stay alive and that his monthly ... (BEGINNING OF TAPE 1B)... and that he was responsible for the transport of arms andthat he received his instructions from Harold Sefola. MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember at all whether he admittedto be involved in acts of terror? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember whether he was physicallypersonally involved with acts of terror, but that he did indicatetargets and serve as a courier for arms. That I can remember. MR DU PLESSIS: After you received this information, whatdid you do next? MR VAN VUUREN: We left these two that very day and returnedto the Security Branch offices. Because of the fact that Makopeinformed us that Sefola was the person who gave instructions withregard to which targets had to be attacked MR DU PLESSIS 349 J J VAN VUUREN and also the fact that he provided housing and assistance to activistsand terrorists who returned to the Security Branch. I went toSecurity Branch Head Office. I must explain here that I had togo to the head office because Witbank was outside of our own area. If it was true that Sefola was the big terrorist and activist, I had to receive his file from the head office because we wouldonly have had files in our branch office of those in our area. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, when you left them there,was this at the property where you had interrogated them? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. We left them at thatvery property. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you leave anyone with them? MR VAN VUUREN: We left Constables Makaba and Tshilahlewith them again. MR DU PLESSIS: What information did you obtain from thefile at Security Branch Head Office with regard to Sefola? MR VAN VUUREN: I left the Security Branch Head Officewhere I drew Sefola's file and it became clear from the file thatSefola was a very big supporter of the ANC and activist and organiserand a trained terrorist. MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember any additional information? MR VAN VUUREN: This is very long ago. In the file theyspoke of his involvement with limpet mine explosions and thathe might have given instruction for the death of a policeman inMamelodi. MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do next? MR VAN VUUREN: That night Mamasela, myself and Hechterwent to Witbank. We used two vehicles. Hechter and myself waitedoutside Witbank on the main road and Mamasela went ahead on hisown. I must mention here that with regard to MR DU PLESSIS 350 J J VAN VUUREN Tshilahle he might have been with us and that only Mukaka mighthave been left with the other two, but I am not sure about this. After about two hours he returned with Sefola. He presentedhimself to Sefola as an ANC terrorist who had been sent fromoutside the country and that there were other persons whom Sefolawas supposed to meet. This is how he had convinced Sefola tocome with him in the vehicle. MR DU PLESSIS: After Sefola was in the vehicle, wheredid you take him? MR VAN VUUREN: We returned to the property to the northof the Pienaarsrivier. We also interrogated Sefola in a similarmanner as the others. MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember how many times you gavehim electrical shocks? MR VAN VUUREN: Between five and 10 times. MR DU PLESSIS: What information did he give you with regardto acts of terror in which he was involved? MR VAN VUUREN: He had admitted after he was interrogatedthat he was an organiser of the ANC in the area with a seniorposition. He admitted that he provided housing for ANC activistsand terrorists and did target analysis for them. Sefola alsospoke, although I cannot remember the names exactly, of a certainPhula or Phule as well as A Mnisi. He admitted his involvementin bombings, limpet mine explosions and that he was responsiblefor the planning of all of these incidents. He admitted to beinga trained terrorist and he provided us with the names and addressesof his own cell as well as other terrorists. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, did you obtain informationfrom him with regard to the involvement of the killing and deathof innocent persons? MR DU PLESSIS 351 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: Did he tell you where he had been trained? MR VAN VUUREN: No, I can no longer remember. MR DU PLESSIS: Were Maake and Makope also trained terrorists? MR VAN VUUREN: I can mention that Maake had been sentoutside of the country for training as I had mentioned at thebeginning. I would suppose that Makope must have been trainedinside the country if he was a member of this cell. MR DU PLESSIS: What was the response of Sefola when youinterrogated him, did he give you the information easily? MR VAN VUUREN: No, he did not want to give the information. MR VAN VUUREN: Sefola was a strong person. He believeddeeply in that in which he was involved in and of its correctness. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you read the third paragraph? MR VAN VUUREN: Mamasela forced a knife in Sefola's nose,after which he provided additional information. He also beggedfor his life. I was present during these interrogations. MR DU PLESSIS: What happened next? MR VAN VUUREN: Mamasela and myself untied him. He askedif he could say something. I agreed to it. He asked if he couldsing N'kosi Sikelela Afrika and he said that we had better killhim. He also claimed that the ANC would govern later, that apartheidwould no longer be able to be maintained and that a democracywould be the end of the Boers. He also mentioned that the SecurityPolice and Umkhonto we Sizwe were the toys of the politicians. I MR DU PLESSIS 352 J J VAN VUUREN never believed then that it would be possible for the ANC to becomethe Government. Mamasela had an ANC flag present which was withus then. He threw this over Maake while Sefola sang Nkosi SikelelaAfrika. We then shocked Makope to death. MR DU PLESSIS: Could you stop there. The applicationis not very clear. When Mamasela threw the ANC flag over Maake,was Maake still alive? MR VAN VUUREN: No, he had already died. MR DU PLESSIS: How did he die? MR VAN VUUREN: We shocked him to death with the generator. MR DU PLESSIS: Was this done during the interrogationof Sefola? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. During the interrogationof Sefola. MR DU PLESSIS: Why did you do this? MR VAN VUUREN: To obtain more information from Sefola. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you do the same to Makope? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS: Why did you do this? MR VAN VUUREN: Also to obtain additional information fromSefola. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you indeed obtain more informationfrom Sefola by killing Maake and Makope? MR DU PLESSIS: You may continue. What happened next? MR VAN VUUREN: The three activists were members of thesame cell. They were interrogated in the first place to obtaininformation from them and also because they were involved withbombings and limpet mine explosions as well as landmine explosions. Especially Sefola made decisions with regard to MR DU PLESSIS 353 J J VAN VUUREN explosions where people died. He admitted his involvement withone of the landmine incidents where people died. There was ageneral state of emergency and unrest, rebellion, arson and murderall over the country. If we had caught them the network wouldsimply have changed. It was necessary to kill them in order todestroy the entire cell. No one knew what had happened to them. After this we blew them up with a landmine so that it would beimpossible to recognise them. This was on a road in Bophuthatswanaclose to Warmbaths. This action was directly due to the generalinstruction of Brig Johan Viktor to sort out problems becausethe country was going up in flames. It was additionally underthe instructions of Brig Cronje. The purpose was to neutralisethe cell. We did not enjoy doing this, we did not want to dothis, but we had to stop them from killing innocent women andchildren. It was additionally necessary to do this because wewere at war with the ANC. I have tremendous respect for HaroldSefola because of the way in which he behaved during the process of us killing him. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, why did you decide to killthese three terrorists with the generator rather than to shootthem or to use another means of killing them? MR VAN VUUREN: We were we to shoot them there would havebeen blood involved. There would have been additional piecesof ammunition used lying around and we also wanted to do it ascleanly and quietly as possible. MR DU PLESSIS: Was there the possibility if you were toshoot them that people in the area might have heard it? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, of the local people were around andthey might have heard it if we were to shoot them. MR DU PLESSIS 354 J J VAN VUUREN JUDGE WILSON: ... blood and make a noise. MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it caused a lot of blood as well asa large noise, but this was entirely in a different place, notat the place where we tortured them. MR DU PLESSIS: Where you blew them up, was that saferand further away from people? MR VAN VUUREN: It had to appear, why we blew them up,was that it had to appear that they were planting a landmine at that time. MR DU PLESSIS: Was this far away from other persons? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it was on a far-off distant road inBophuthatswana. MS KHAMPEPE: I am just a little unclear about your partof evidence with regard to when you knew that both of the threeactivists were members of the same cell. At what stage did youascertain that fact, that they were members of the same cell? MR VAN VUUREN: After we had interrogated them we determinedthat they were members of a single cell. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you determine this prior to killingthe first person, Maake? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, Maake told us who his contact personhad been. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, it is necessary for us togo into this with greater detail. The death caused with the power generator, I know you are not a medical doctor, but what,according to you, would have been the experience, how quicklywould these persons have died when you shocked them to death? MR VAN VUUREN: It is difficult to say, but it would havebeen between five and eight seconds. MR DU PLESSIS 355 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, could you page to page 113,could you read the second last paragraph with regard to your motivation, starting from the second last paragraph? MR VAN VUUREN: The purpose of this action was to counter the ANC and other liberation movements who were involved in arevolutionary onslaught against the apartheid government. Themotive of the act was to counter terrorism, advance security anddefend the country. A further motive was to eliminate activistsand terrorists so that additional information which would havebeen to the disadvantage of the State and security forces notto have become available beyond them. The context within whichthis occurred was against the background of a state of emergencyas well as unrest, violence and intimidation on a daily basis. The ANC and other liberation movements attempted to make thecountry ungovernable at that time as part of the political resistance. The purpose and goal was to eliminate ANC supporter/activistsor terrorists. After information was gained by means of interrogationit was necessary to eliminate these three terrorists in orderto destroy the entire cell and with regard to trained terroristsinvolved in the death and assault on innocent people to causethem to stop from their actions. MR DU PLESSIS: Would it have at that time been possibleto act in a different way with regard to these terrorists? Couldyou have arrested them in terms of security legislation? Whatwould your view be in this regard? MR VAN VUUREN: It was not possible to detain them. Theevidence available to us was such that you could not bring peopleto court to testify against these persons. At that time the blackSecurity Police officers were no longer MR DU PLESSIS 356 J J VAN VUUREN willing to come into offices. Because of the nature of the strugglethey stayed at home to defend their homes. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, would the security forceshave been able for instance, after having released Sefola, werehe to have been involved in the planting of landmines, would thesecurity forces have been able to prevent him from doing suchactions? MR VAN VUUREN: We would not have been able to inhibithim; we had to eliminate him to prevent him from doing theseacts. MR DU PLESSIS: Turn to page 109 please. At the bottom. Your motivation. I just want to highlight it specificallyin this incident, what was said there. Could you read that, itis part of the general motivation. Just draw the attention ofthe Committee to the last paragraph on page 109 and beginning110. MR VAN VUUREN: It was necessary to eliminate activistssince the information gained from them during interrogation hadto be protected. The identity of the informants and sources ofthe Security Police had to be protected. If activists and terroristsafter providing information would have been arrested, then theinformation, routes of the freedom fighters and activists wouldhave changed so that the Security Police would not have been ableto use the information. When activists intended going outsidethe country for training they had to be eliminated to preventthat they would destabilise the land and its people at a laterstage by means of acts of terrorism, such as bombing attacks againstboth the security forces and soft targets. As soon as an activisthad been trained, he was in a different class to other activists. His knowledge and MR DU PLESSIS 357 J J VAN VUUREN skills became similar to that of the Security Police and he wouldhave been much more effective in military operations. All of this maintained the Government of the National Party andcombatted communism effectively and maintained apartheid. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, was the use of electricity generally one of the accepted means of interrogation by the securityforces? MR VAN VUUREN: This is the case, it was an accepted method.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR CURRIN: (Translator: MR CURRIN IS NOT USING HIS MICROPHONE) I need a bit more space. I want to move to this seat and putmy one file on that desk and use the other one, if that wouldbe suitable. Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Warrant Officer Van Vuuren,Mr Maake's mother is here today. We have consulted with herand she is adamant that her son, who is the victim in this case,never ever left the country. He was an 18 year old schoolboy. She has no knowledge of him being absent from home for threemonths. MR VAN VUUREN: That is untrue. He was an informant ofthe Security Branch. We took him to the border ourselves where we dropped him the first time when he went into Botswana alongthe powerlines. MR CURRIN: This was the same person as the Maake thatyou sent abroad for training? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, 100%. If somebody has a photo ofhim I will be able to recognise him again. MR CURRIN: And the fact that his mother says that he neverleft the country. MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot explain that. I can just tell you that the Maake I was involved with we organised a car forhim, driver's licence. In other words, I can tell you that Icannot explain that what she says that he was not away from homefor three months. MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did have a file for him. MR CURRIN: A paper file as well as a computer file? MR VAN VUUREN: At the Security Branch we only have a paper file. MR CURRIN: Where is that file now? MR VAN VUUREN: It was destroyed along with all the otherfiles as was testified earlier on. MR CURRIN: Was he a person who had been identified asa prime target by trivets? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot testify about that, I do not know. No, I can just explain how it worked at the Security Branch. Me, Captain Hechter and Mamasela, if I may say the word, werebasically the hit squad of the Security Police in that area. And we also had our own normal activities with which we went on. Amongst others, Maake was our informant, in other words, inour normal security network, he was involved with us. MR CURRIN: ... with you and since you were involved intaking him across the border, I assume you know what he lookedlike? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I know what he looked like. MR CURRIN: Could you describe his features and/or physicalother characteristics? MR VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult to describe him now. If I saw a photograph of him I can describe him. He was approximately5ft 10, well-built. He had an open face, intelligent, very intelligent appearance. MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible) MR CURRIN: You must have known his age? MR VAN VUUREN: I never asked his age, but I thought hewas between 20 and 25 years old. MR CURRIN: He was born in 1968, which means that in 1986he was 18. MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot deny that. MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: We went to Minetoria. I can just explainwhat happened there. Captain Hechter and I after we made a caravailable to him and after he came back from training, and thetechnical department of Security, built a false compartment intothe car. MR DU PLESSIS: If I can just interrupt here. The questionasked to Warrant Officer Van Vuuren relates to an incident whichwe regard as an incident which has got nothing to do with theamnesty applications and his evidence pertaining to this mightincriminate him in respect of a certain action which doesn't formpart of this amnesty application. So I would request the Committeeat this stage that he doesn't give evidence pertaining to thisspecific question about the licence. JUDGE WILSON: Is he now concealing information from this Committee? Is that what his intention is, not to be frank withus? I am just asking you. MR DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem ....(intervention). JUDGE WILSON: Are there other offences that he doesn'twant to talk about, is that what you are saying? MR DU PLESSIS: No, the only point I am making, Mr Chairman,is that he is going to incriminate himself in respect of an offencewhich he hasn't asked amnesty for which we don't regard as anoffence that he can ask amnesty for, and I believe the Act insection 30 makes provision for this situation. CHAIRMAN: What is the offence? MR DU PLESSIS: The evidence relates to the method in whichthey obtained the licence. He didn't go through a test, Mr Chairman,they obtained the licence by way of a procedure and an arrangement. CHAIRMAN: In the light of horrendous evidence that we have heard, do you think we should apply our mind really aboutthe validity of the licence? MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. MR VAN VUUREN: Can I go on? Yes, I can just explain thatthe technical branch of Security was a Ford Cortina, a stationwagon, if I remember correctly, it was dark grey. Captain Hechterand I went to Moratoria in Pretoria. I cannot remember the nameof the person. I remember he was in a very senior position. We explained to him what we wanted and he told us that it wasno problem and that we only needed two passport photos of himand that we could pick up the licence the next day. The nextday we picked up the licence. MR VAN VUUREN: That is probable. MR CURRIN: Was this licence on Maake's own name? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it was on his own name. MS KHAMPEPE: When was the licence organised on behalfof Mr Maake at Moratoria? MR VAN VUUREN: It was just after his return from training outside the country. MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember the exact date. It mighthave been 1986 or 1987, I cannot remember exactly. MR CURRIN: ... to put into motion steps to try and investigatewhether there is a licence in the name of this particular victim. Could you describe the circumstances that gave rise to Maakebecoming an informant? MR VAN VUUREN: I can no longer exactly remember how he had become an informant. I would imagine that I took him overfrom someone else, that he had been an informant for someone elseand that he was then transferred to me. That originally he wasone of Warrant Officer Van Wyk's informants. MR CURRIN: ... before you suspected that he was a double agent. MR VAN VUUREN: It is again difficult to say, but I wouldimagine it was about six or seven, maybe eight months. I wouldnot be able to say exactly. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: When did you become suspicious? MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already explained, Maake cameto our offices on his own, out of his own volition. The onlyway in which he was able to enter our offices was that there weretwo guards of the Special Guard Unit at the entrance and thenyou had to use a lift up to our offices. There were activistsof other sections who were taken in and out of our offices allthe time from gaol, up and down, in and out of the offices. Youcould only use this life. On many occasions it happened that the guard would phone us from the bottomthat Mr Maake was standing there waiting for us, and on one occasionhe simply came up in the lift, claiming that he was a policeofficer, and he came up in the lift and that made us concerned,something was going wrong. MR CURRIN: Did you never allow informants into your offices? Or was it against the policy? Was it against policy, practice,what was ....(intervention). MR VAN VUUREN: The informants would be in our officeson the day of their recruiting and possibly very late at nightwhen we in one way or another made them impossible to recognise. If they left our offices in broad daylight they would be deadthe next day. MR CURRIN: ... I assume you are talking about Wagthuisnow, when you talk about your offices? MR VAN VUUREN: No, I am talking about Compol. MR CURRIN: Was the purpose to protect information withinCompol or was the purpose to protect the informant's identity,to protect him from ....(intervention). MR VAN VUUREN: It was in two parts. In the first placeto protect the identity of the informant, to maintain its clandestinenature and secondly to keep all the information in our officesclandestine. MR CURRIN: ... to torture him after you suspected thathe was a double agent? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: (COMMENCEMENT OF TAPE 2 SIDE A) ... fairlyquickly admitted that he was a double agent. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: That one is a double agent when one is beingtortured and asked to admit. Surely it places one in an invidious situation. You are being tortured and you are being asked to admit something. You know that you are facingdeath, do you deny it? MR VAN VUUREN: No, he did not know that he was going tobe killed, nor did we know that we were going to kill him. MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: The fact that he made available the nameof Makope and that we went to the offices from there, that madeclear to us that he was in fact a double agent. MR CURRIN: ... after you began to torture him. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. He only mentioned thisname after we proceeded with the interrogation using the generator.MR CURRIN: Not as a double agent, but as an informant he would know who the activists are in the greater Pretoriaregion. MR VAN VUUREN: He had never before made Makope's nameknown to us in any report that he had written to us. The nameof Makope was never mentioned to us. This was the first occasionon which this happened. That's why we went back to the officesto check the truth of what he said. We drew Makope's file inour offices. MR CURRIN: ... in the past as an informant? MR VAN VUUREN: I can no longer remember. It might havebeen 10 or 50 names. There were many reports written. I canno longer remember. MR CURRIN: Why do you say so categorically that he hadn'tmentioned his name before, Makope? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. He mentioned Makope'sname at that time. MR CURRIN: You already had a file. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: You already had a file. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. Makope did have a file. MR CURRIN: ... file been opened? MR VAN VUUREN: I am not understanding this question. CHAIRMAN: ... somebody else may have done it, Mr Currin. MR CURRIN: I accept that. I just question the fact thatyou say categorically that he never mentioned Makope's name before,but yet there was a file. CHAIRMAN: It is not inconsistent. MR CURRIN: Not necessarily. During your testimony youdidn't repeat at all your evidence which is in writing on pages111 and 112 and 113. That evidence relates to the purpose oftorture, of interrogation and torture. Correct? MR VAN VUUREN: I don't understand the question. MR CURRIN: In your application on pages 111 to 113 youdeal with the purpose of interrogation and torture. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: ... refer to that ... (rest inaudible) CHAIRMAN: It is all evidence, as I understand it. MR CURRIN: I just wanted to know whether there was anyreason why, from the witness, why that evidence was not read ontothe record. CHAIRMAN: If you think there is anything sinister aboutit, then I'd like to hear it. MR CURRIN: In the context of that question, I would liketo ask you why you deem it necessary to kill Maake and the reasonwhy I asked the question is because there is a motivation forkilling people that you torture. And one of the important reasonsis so that person that you've tortured who gleans informationthrough being tortured about other informants and about the SecurityPolice activity, would then be a threat to you. He already knew all of that information- sorry, that informant would become known to other informants. Maake was already an informant. He had nothing more to revealto anybody. He didn't learn anything more from the interrogationabout the activities of the Security Branch and other informants. So why was it necessary to kill him? MR VAN VUUREN: I have already said that we thought thatMaake was a double agent after the interrogation and having identifiedMakope, who brother was a trained ANC terrorist in Lusaka, wecontinued with the interrogation. We were no longer able totrust him. He was an arms courier and with regard to Sefola,who was the kingpin of this entire cell, and was involved withlimpet and landmine explosions and the death of police officersin Mamelodi and the use of landmines in Mamelodi. Maake was involvedin the activities of this cell. He was one of the pawns in thiscell and that is why we decided to eliminate him. MR CURRIN: ... collected Makope and taken him for interrogationin this open lot on the premises of PPC, and you said it wason the premises of PPC. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: Maybe before I get to that. How did you gainaccess to those premises. MR VAN VUUREN: I grew up in that area and as a boy Ioften shot game there. There were 4-foot wires but there wasalso a gate I can go in through. There was no security. PPCdid not know anything about it at all. If you knew how to getin there you could only drive in. MR CURRIN: Why did you follow the procedure of interrogationand then leaving them there and going home and coming back the next morning? Why didn't continue with the interrogationuninterrupted? What was the purpose? MR VAN VUUREN: We first had to go and find out whetherthey were talking the truth because they could give us names of people who did not even exist. That's why we went back everytime to find out. At the main office we looked into the filesand found out if it was really true and what was going on. MR CURRIN: You said that Maake told you about his involvementin terrorist deeds and so on. Have you any specific recollectionof what he was involved in? MR VAN VUUREN: He brought terror arms into the countrywith the vehicle we organised for him and those weapons we neverreceived. He said that he never brought weapons in but duringthe questioning he did say that he brought weapons into the countryand he handed it over to Makope. MR CURRIN: ... originally interrogated him? MR VAN VUUREN: Never. When he came back from traininghe never said that he brought weapons into the country. MR CURRIN: ... go to pains to talk about the fact thatyou left food and water for them and there was a zozo-hut where they might sleep. What was the relevance of that evidence? MR VAN VUUREN: I can only say that we treated them humanely. MR CURRIN: ... shocking them with a generator for an hour,to make it humane you say that you left them food, water and azozo-hut to sleep in. MR VAN VUUREN: Your Honour, there is no easy way to killany person. We bought food for us, for ourselves and we alsobought food for them. CHAIRMAN: Maybe they hadn't finished with him and they wanted him to survive until they'd got all the information. MR CURRIN: It is unlikely he would have died (inaudible) but I accept that. MR CURRIN: No, that is untrue. MR VAN VUUREN: It is untrue that he would have died fromstarvation. MR CURRIN: This was the first time that you had interrogatedMakope, is that correct? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct. MR CURRIN: If one looks at the motivation as to why youinterrogated as part of your written application, you say thatone of the reasons why we interrogate and torture is to intimidatethe particular activist into refraining from continuing with hisactivities. Why didn't you rather use that as an exercise here. It is now the first opportunity, you've never interrogated himbefore, he is plucked out of his home in Mamelodi, why didn'tyou try and make an informer out of him? MR VAN VUUREN: Your Honour, these people were involvedin landmine explosions, limpet mine explosions, death of policemen. At that stage it was a total onslaught. It was very difficultto find informants to work for the Security Police and the policemenhad to stay at home to look after their houses. The people'swar was getting stronger and stronger and we had to act. MR CURRIN: ... what we've been told previously. We'vebeen told that there were many, many informants. And in fact,yesterday the number of 500 was mentioned just within that region. MR VAN VUUREN: That's the truth. MR CURRIN: ... to get informers. I don't understand that. MR VAN VUUREN: I can only explain by saying that it becamemore and more difficult to get informants. It was initially veryeasy but it became more and more difficult. As the people's warwas continuing it became more and more difficult. People fearedfor their lives and they were scared because if it was foundout that they were informants, they were necklaced the followingday and their families were killed. It became more difficultto get informants. MR CURRIN: But it was information for you. You stillendeavoured ....(intervention.) MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, but I can only say thatthe ANC worked in cells. There are approximately 5 to 8 peoplein one cell and the one cell did not know about the other cell. To try and get Mr Makope to be an informant to get six or sevenpeople's names was not worth the trouble. We did not try to gethim as an informant, only to get those six or seven names. MR CURRIN: And persuade him to become an informant wasbecause he had committed terrorist deeds. I don't understandthat in the light of what constitutes an Askari. These are peoplewho were part of the struggle, they were involved in terror deeds,but they were interrogated and they were persuaded to become informants. Why not in this instance? And the reason I put the questionto you is that you had power of life and death over these threeindividuals and I am putting it to you that one really has tochoose between a few evils and I am questioning why you didn'tfirst try an alternative evil into persuading them to become informants and persuading them to assist you in the course of your interrogation. Why didn't you just decide in the firstinstance to kill them? MR VAN VUUREN: Your Honour, I can only say that Mr Makopeand Mr Maake were in a specific cell and the moment we gainedthem as informants, the struggle was at that stage very serious. The moment we gained them as informants the chances wouldhave been very good that they could tell Sefola and that he couldtell others that they were now informants. We did not try torecruit them; they were involved in very bad crimes and we didnot try to recruit them. MR CURRIN: ... Sefola as well, why didn't you also tryand convert him to become an informant, rather than kill him inthe first instance? First you try and intimidate him. Afterall, you said that was the purpose of interrogation and torture. Secondly, to try and convert him to become an informant, whydidn't you do it? MR DE JAGER: Please try and ask one question at a time. I think the witness has difficulty in answering a whole paragraph. MR CURRIN: My apologies. (Inaudible) ... as well. Whydid you not try and intimidate him first into stopping his activitiesand then in the second instance simultaneously try and persuadehim to be an informant? MR VAN VUUREN: Somebody who was involved in landmine explosionsand limpet explosions is committed to the cause. It is impossibleto convince him to stop with his deed. MR CURRIN: ... previously committed to the cause? MR VAN VUUREN: Askaris were usually State witnesses whohave already testified in court. We were not on Vlakplaas; we did not try to recruit them as members of the Security Branch. Our purpose was to put into practice the Government'scounter revolutionary aims. MR CURRIN: ... activities that Makope and Sefola wereinvolved in? MR VAN VUUREN: I don't have any other evidence. MR CURRIN: ... for application you say that Mamasela pretendedto be an ANC terrorist who was sent from abroad and that therewere also other people who had to meet Sefola. MR VAN VUUREN: It is usually the way in which Mr Mamasela acted. I knew him very well. It was not a problem for him toinfiltrate a person like Mr Sefola. If Mr Sefola really was ahigh ANC person, Mr Mamasela would have easily infiltrated him. MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: There was a wire around his foot and anotherwire around his hand, his right hand. An electrical wire. Sothere was an electrical wire around his foot and around his hand. MR CURRIN: And that then resulted in the electric currentgoing right through the whole body? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: And what sort of reaction does one get froma person who is being shocked in that fashion? What does it MR VAN VUUREN: Is this when he dies? MR CURRIN: Both. When you give a shock that doesn't killand maybe you can tell us also when it does kill? MR VAN VUUREN: If I remember correctly, when you are givinghim such an electrical shock to kill them, the electrical generatorwas switched on and their bodies convulsed and their eyes closed. If we only switched it on and off during interrogation, withthe purpose of interrogation, they simply screamed, well, theyonly screamed. MR CURRIN: With regard to Sefola, your evidence was thatyou'd ascertained that he had been involved in limpet mines, thekilling of a policeman and a number of other terrorist deeds. Had he ever before been arrested and/or detained as an activist? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember exactly. What I canremember is that I drew his file at head office. It was stillon computer, they printed it out for me, it was a very thickfile, and in this file it said what he did. Sefola was outside of our area, he was in the Eastern Transvaalregion, so I cannot tell you exactly what all stood in the file,but what it did contain is that he admitted to us subsequentlythat he was the person who gave instructions, MK members wouldenter the country, go to his home and he would then give theminstructions. He would analyse the targets. He would for instancetell them to plant a limpet mine in Checkers because he wouldsee there is a lot of people there or very little police or whateverthe reason might be. That's how it worked in his case, yes. MR CURRIN: ... indicated that he had been involved inmany previous terrorist activities, but you couldn't ascertainfrom the file whether he had ever been arrested or detained before? MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember whether he had been arrestedpreviously or not during the course of the emergency. MR CURRIN: When you spoke about accessing informationabout him a moment ago, you said they pulled the information upon computer and then put it into writing for you. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, that is how it worked at head office. If I came from a different section, such asfor instance Northern Transvaal branch, he was outside of ourarea, he was in the Eastern Transvaal. I would then approachthe head office or go to the head office, I would give them hisname and they would then use his name and his area as far as wecould determine it from Maake and Makope and they would then drawthe file from the computer. MR CURRIN: You said that the file was only in writing. MR VAN VUUREN: No, that is only Makope's file which wasat our branch. Our branch did not have a computer. We only used paper files. That is where I physically worked, at NorthernTransvaal Security Branch. At head office, however, they keptthe information on computer and I drew the file from the computerand they then printed it for me. MR CURRIN: Has that database, has that also been destroyed? MR VAN VUUREN: In 1989 I left the service of the SecurityPolice. As far as I have been able to ascertain from ColonelPhilip Loots, and as he told me, there was an instruction fromhead office that all files concerning activists and all the computerinformation had to be destroyed. This was just immediately beforethe elections and then all of this was destroyed. MR CURRIN: Did you participate in any way in destroyingfiles? MR VAN VUUREN: No, at that time I was no longer a memberof the South African Police Force. I can mention that ColonelLoots might be able to give you more information with regard to the disappearance of files and why they were destroyed. MR CURRIN: If I understood your evidence correctly, youindicated previously that cells normally consisted of five people. MR VAN VUUREN: It varied. It could be five people, itcould be four people, it could be eight people or 10 people. But the point is that a cell was a closed cell in terms of whichit operated. Such a cell would not know about another cell. The ANC used this to protect themselves so that if one of themdid happen to be captured or was interrogated, then only thatcell would be able to be destroyed while the other cells wouldbe able to continue with their operations. MR CURRIN: Did you know that this particular cell onlyconsisted of three people? How do you know that this cell only consisted of three people? MR VAN VUUREN: It consisted out of more people. HarrySefola gave their names to us. MR CURRIN: What happened to the rest of the cell? MR VAN VUUREN: In our further application we indicate that we also eliminated these other persons. It is a separateapplication, yes. MR CURRIN: In how many tortures, other than this particularcase that we are dealing with here, were you personally involvedin? MR VAN VUUREN: This is very difficult to give an exactamount, but quite a large number. MR DU PLESSIS: With respect, part of the applications,of this bundle of applications, contains general applicationspertaining to, for instance, interrogations. The applicants in those instances said that they cannot remember in how manyinterrogations they were involved in and that they apply as ageneral application for amnesty in respect of those interrogations. I am just making that point because I don't think Mr Currinis aware of that. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) ... how many instances was he personallyinvolved? MR CURRIN: Personally involved in approximately. Wasit something that happened every week, were there hundreds? MR VAN VUUREN: No, not hundreds, possibly I could saythere were 30 or 40 cases of interrogation involving torture. I cannot remember exactly. MR CURRIN: ... you don't have the names of the rest, other than the ones that are referred to in your application beforethis Committee. MR VAN VUUREN: In specific instances where I could remember the name, I made an application for amnesty in this regard. MR CURRIN: ... people other than the ones that are referredto here, did you torture to death? MR DU PLESSIS: With respect, I don't want to be difficultand I don't want to object, but as far as I understand this cross-examination,this cross-examination pertains to this specific application. And I have made the point that he has applied for amnesty ona general basis in respect of certain interrogations of whichhe cannot remember the details. CHAIRMAN: But it is not likely that he is going to give his evidence in instalments is he? MR DU PLESSIS: Pardon, Mr Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Is he expected to be called to give evidenceagain on other matters? MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but he is not goingto be expected to give evidence on that general application becausethat doesn't form part of these hearings. CHAIRMAN: No, I understand, apart from the general application. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, if I may say. Surely it is relevantto full disclosure. Surely we have a right to know, the publichas a right to know how many people this applicant tortured todeath. CHAIRMAN: You may ask him that question. MR CURRIN: How many people did you torture to death, personally? MR VAN VUUREN: In my application I think there were anadditional two or three persons, an additional two or three personsapart from the current application. MR CURRIN: The ANC flag that was on the scene when thetorture took place, who provided the flag? MR VAN VUUREN: I can no longer remember how the flag cameto be there. It is simply not possible. It might be, and Iam emphasising that it might be, that Mamasela brought this flagalong when he picked up Sefola that evening, but I cannot rememberhow exactly the flag came to be there. MR CURRIN: ... indication, "we then killed or shockedMakope to death". On page 103 the top paragraph, "Wethen shocked Makope to death". Did he die accidentally ordid you supply sufficient power to ensure that he died, and thisapplies to all three? MR VAN VUUREN: We used sufficient power to kill them. MR CURRIN: And who was operating the generator? MR VAN VUUREN: It was myself and Mr Mamasela. Captain Hechter wrote the questions down and the responses. MR CURRIN: In your application you say, "It was additionallynecessary because we were at war with the ANC". On page104, the second last paragraph, final sentence, "It wasadditionally necessary since we were at war with the ANC". What was your understanding of waging a war? MR VAN VUUREN: (Answer inaudible) MR CURRIN: You were not a soldier, you were a policeman. In the general evidence submitted by Mr Cronje, he said a lotabout waging war and that you were involved in waging a war... (COMMENCEMENT TAPE 2 SIDE B) ... to become a soldier? MR VAN VUUREN: I can only say that I was a Security Policeman,we were not normal police officers. We were the political police,one could say. We were to fight against the ANC. We did notdo normal policing tasks in which we were to prevent people from robbing banks or such. We did nothave normal policing functions. We were Security Police, we wenton course, on security courses. We were trained to fight againstthe ANC with everything we had in our power. We were trainedon hand grenades, we were trained to jump from buildings withclimbing equipment, we had intensive training. Not only practicaltraining, but also academic training which showed us what thepurposes of the ANC were and we were told that this was the so-called"rooi gevaar", the communist threat. I believed inwhat I did, I believed that I was doing it for my country andmy people. MR CURRIN: ... waging the war you understood that thelaws of the land, whether it be the emergency regulations, the Police Act, the Internal Security Act, did not apply to you. You were entitled to kill the enemy. MR VAN VUUREN: No, the laws also were valid in my case, but as the total onslaught became more and more serious and aswe received instructions from the top and as we were told thatwe had to combat these people with everything in our power,even if that meant that we had to kill people, that we had todo this. At that time I was proud of what I did. MR CURRIN: ... to disregard the law. MR VAN VUUREN: That is not what I am saying. I want tore-emphasise, our instructions came to eliminate these persons,to get rid of them because of the intensifying of the People'sWar and we were therefore told that we were to carry out certainclandestine operations which Captain Hechter and myself and Mamaselawere tasked as a team to carry out these clandestine operations. If the National Party was in government today then none of this would have becomecommon knowledge. MR CURRIN: ... understand the logic in your answer. Areyou saying the killings in this particular instance were lawfulkillings?] MR VAN VUUREN: I would not claim that. It would neverhave been lawful to kill people, but in the context of the thenwar we as Security Police officers attempting to combat the ANC,this became a means to an end. We combatted the ANC with everythingin us. We were never repudiated when we killed people and whenit was unlawful we should have been taken to court. There weremeans by which to get rid of evidence. JUDGE Ngoepe: But I don't understand your answer to Mr Currin's previous question. He said that the way you understoodyour instructions, were you to do anything, whatever you feltyou could do, even if that could be against the law? MR VAN VUUREN: That's how I understood my instructions. Even if it was against the law, I was allowed to act in that way. I don't mean to say that this was right. MR CURRIN: I just want to take you back before I conclude. You said that during your interrogation of Maake, on page 97,the last sentence in the long paragraph in the middle, that yougleaned evidence that there was going to be an attempt to tryand bomb the Security Police offices in Pretoria. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: When you got that evidence, what steps didyou take to ensure that that did not happen? MR VAN VUUREN: I don't understand the question. MR CURRIN: You learnt that there was going to be an attemptto bomb police security force headquarters in Pretoria. MR CURRIN: What steps did you take, it never happened. What did you do to ensure that it would not happen? MR VAN VUUREN: Maake told us that he worked with a LeicesterDumakudu and that they were going to plant a bomb at SecurityBranch Head Offices. After we killed Maake my unit commanderand myself, that was Colonel Philip Loots, I told him what hadhappened. He then said to me that he would take this up withthe official security of the building. But that was long ago. I can't remember what all we discussed in this regard. MR CURRIN: From page 113 onwards you deal with the generalmotivation. I just want to say to you I am not going to ask youany questions regarding the general motivation at this stage. I will reserve that when I cross-examine Mr Cronje, and I justwould like to reserve the right to call you back in regard tothat general information at a later stage. I have no furtherquestions. CHAIRMAN: If you get all the answers from General Cronje,would you still require him to be called back? MR CURRIN: No, if I get all the answers from Brig Cronjethen obviously we will not call him. CHAIRMAN: I perhaps thought that you were going to doyour cross-examination differently. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Mr Van Vuuren, what wasthe power of this generator, how many watts? MR VAN VUUREN: If I remember, it was a 220 volt generator. 2B Just/... MR MPSHE: ... used on a person, it had the ability ofjerking even his body? It had the ability to jerk the body whenused on a human being. MR VAN VUUREN: No, it wouldn't jerk him around but hisbody would become rigid. MR MPSHE: ... when you went to collect Makope? MR VAN VUUREN: We used a minibus of the Security Police. MR MPSHE: With whom was Makope in his car when you stoppedhim? MR VAN VUUREN: I can't remember. The white members ofthe Security Police didn't leave the vehicle. If I remember correctly,it was only Sergeant Mamasela who got out of the vehicle and whoaccosted Makope, we refer to stealing a person, to robbing a personwhen we grabbed him. MR MPSHE: ... which gives one the impression that youmay have seen it was possible for you to see the occupants ofhis car, not so? MR VAN VUUREN: That is possible, but it was at night time. I cannot remember whether there was someone else in the vehicleor not. Today I cannot remember. If it was a week after theevent I would have remembered, but I cannot any longer. MR MPSHE: ... on that day he was with a lady in the carand this lady was taken with the car and dropped somewhere, wouldyou remember that? MR VAN VUUREN: That's possible. I wouldn't argue againstyou. MR MPSHE: You testified about making use of this generator. Could you tell us exactly how this is done? MR VAN VUUREN: Is this in the case of interrogation of MR MPSHE: The use of the generator to kill them? On page103. The first paragraph, the last sentence. "We then shockedMakope to death". What do you connect, if there is anythingto be connected, and on what part of his body? MR VAN VUUREN: To repeat, we used the generator. Therewere two wires. One was connected to his foot and one was connectedto his hand. Then when you switched the generator on it shocksthe person and his body goes rigid. MR MPSHE: That would go on until you are sure that heis dead. MR MPSHE: How long would the duration be? MR VAN VUUREN: Five to eight seconds, I would say. MR MPSHE: Still on the same page paragraph 2 your evidenceis to the effect that he made admissions as to his actions. "AfterSefola gave additional information and made admissions that hewas involved in landmine incidents as well as the death of peopledue to that, he was also shocked to death with the generator". At what stage did he make these admissions? MR VAN VUUREN: This was done before he was killed. MR MPSHE: ... as a senior person in the police force,didn't you think then that with these admissions a very successfulconviction would follow? MR VAN VUUREN: No, Your Honour. We would not be ableto put this person in a court. How would we explain to the magistratewe gained these admissions? There was no way in which we couldfind such a person guilty in a court. The moment we would takehim to a magistrate we would be in trouble and he wouldn't bein trouble any more. MR MPSHE: Can you just tell us. What happened to thecorpses or the remains thereof? MR VAN VUUREN: We took the bodies in the minibus of theSecurity Branch. We drove to a lonely road in Bophuthatswana. We placed a landmine on the ground. We packed them on top ofthe landmine and we detonated the landmine. MR MPSHE: ... the power or the weight of this landminethat you used? MR VAN VUUREN: I am not an explosives expert, but I wouldsay that it would have been 5 or 7 kilos of explosives. MR MPSHE: Sufficient enough to blow a human body intopieces? MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed. It was sufficient to blow several bodies to pieces. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee. I amgoing to show the witness a post-mortem report which I will handup, it is already on the Bench, to confirm what I am going toask him about. I want you to have a look at page 1 and 2 thereof. MR VAN VUUREN: I have looked at it. MR MPSHE: The contents of page 1 as well as page 2 arecommensurate with the powerful blasting of a human being by yourself? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. I would say so. MR MPSHE: The post-mortem report which I have just shownto you, Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I hand that inas an exhibit. I think it is EXHIBIT G. I have givencopies of this to your legal representatives. In the whole ofthis post-mortem no mention is made of any head or even the bodybeing found. MR VAN VUUREN: I haven't checked this, but I'll believeyou that it would say so. MR MPSHE: No mention is made about the head being foundor even any part of the body, except the legs and the fingers. This to me would imply that a real, real forceful bomb was beingused. You have agreed to that, not so? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR MPSHE: Tell us how these bodies were blown? CHAIRMAN: What is meant by that question, "how theywere blown"? MR MPSHE: How they were blown, Mr Chairman, were they tied to the landmine or were they placed close to the landmine, or were they placed close to the landmine? In what way was thebody blown, Mr Chairman. MR VAN VUUREN: We placed the landmines on the groundwith some mentolite(?) to detonate it with a detonator. We placedhim on top of the landmine with the legs and the arms and everythingon top of the landmine. We then lit the landmine. When we wereabout 500 metres from the landmine we parked and we watched itdetonate and blow up. MR MPSHE: If I could just be given some indulgence ofa minute. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Van Vuuren, you told usfirst how the generator was used during the interrogation in detail and you've just told us again how the landmine was used onthese people, in detail. Why was this not included in yourapplication, as forming part of full disclosure? MR VAN VUUREN: In my application I said that we blew themup with a landmine. What more would you want me to tell you? What more must I tell you than that I blew them up with a landmine? MR MPSHE: Everybody would understand that if this wasexplained to you by your legal representative that when we speakof "full disclosure" we mean all relevant facts to whatyou have done. JUDGE WILSON: What do you say has been omitted, Mr Mpshe? He says here we blew them up with a landmine so that they couldnot be recognised. It was a road in Bophuthatswana. MR MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, that is included. But I am referringto the details of how this was done, as this would impact itselfon the full disclosure that is required in terms of the Act. Can I get a comment on that? MR VAN VUUREN: I don't have any problem to explain tothe Commission how it was done. If they believe that I left outanything to make it more clear, I would happily explain this. MR MPSHE: Page 109, paragraph (c), right at the bottom. I will read the paragraph for your convenience "Dit was ook nodig om aktiviste te elimineer omdat inligting wat tydens ondervraging verkry is beskerm moes word". I don't understand what you are trying to say by this paragraph. Could you explain that? MR VAN VUUREN: On occasion there would be sensitive informationgained. If this person was then released this information wouldhave become known, it would have leaked. So it was necessaryto eliminate the person to ensure that that information only wasavailable to the Security Police and not also to the ANC. MR MPSHE: ... if that person is released or he is notkilled then the information that was already in your possession,in your custody, would leak out, is that what MR VAN VUUREN: If this person was released then the informationwhich we obtained by means of interrogation would be of no valueto us because he would go and tell that he gave us this informationand that we know about particular instructions and so forth. That is what I tried to say. MR MPSHE: ... the very first paragraph "The identity of the informants and sources of the SecurityPolice had to be protected". You have already said that you did not study the law, but I amasking you this on the basis that you are a senior police officerand what I am going to ask you forms part of your studies at collegeas policeman. Don't you think in order to avoid disclosure ofinformers, or your informers, you were covered by the CriminalProcedure Act in that regard? MR DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, if this person, Sefola for instance,the next day went to town and said Mr Masamela, he is an informant. I've seen him last night, he interrogated me, he has been joinedby these police officers, wouldn't that be a disclosure of aninformer's name and the identity of him and isn't that what thewitness is trying to convey? MR MPSHE: That would be, Mr Chairman, members of the Committee,and I stand indebted on the answer given for the applicant bythe Committee. I will leave that question there. Mr Chairman,that is all I had to ask the witness. Thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, can I ask you some questionsbefore I ask the applicant. Firstly, he asked at the commencement of your cross-examination whether there was a photographavailable of the deceased. Do you know if there is? MR CURRIN: Yes, we in fact have now got a photograph available. JUDGE WILSON: So is it possible to ascertain that youare talking about the same person or not? MR CURRIN: We are not sure whether it is going to be possiblefrom the photograph, he was quite a lot younger at the time. JUDGE WILSON: So you haven't got a photograph at aboutthat period? MR CURRIN: We have one when he was two years younger,and obviously 16 to 18 does make quite a big difference. But,however, we thought it might be appropriate to ask the applicantwhether he recognises the person. JUDGE WILSON: And have any enquiries been made about thislicence? Whether there is a photograph available in the records,presumably ....(intervention). MR CURRIN: We've got somebody working on that. We heardabout it for the first time an hour ago and we'll certainly -we are working on that. JUDGE WILSON: I will leave it for the moment. And a finalquestion in this regard is, the young man you were talking aboutwas at school. JUDGE WILSON: Are his school records available? MR CURRIN: We are investigating school records as wellas church attendance records. JUDGE WILSON: Can I just ask you one question, Mr VanVuuren. As I understand it you went to headquarters and obtained the printout of the computer file dealing with MrSefola. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: What was contained in that file confirmedwhat you had been told, it was the same information. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: So headquarters knew that he was a greatANC supporter, an activist, an organiser, a trained terrorist. That was all on record. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: He was not in your section area, he wasin another area in Witbank. MR VAN VUUREN: That is also correct. JUDGE WILSON: That night you went to Witbank, pickedhim up, took him away, tortured him and killed him. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: ... information that was already availableto your headquarters, is that correct? MR VAN VUUREN: Not so, Your Honour. We wanted to confirm simply that Mr Makope, when he implicated Mr Sefola, we want to confirm that such a Mr Sefola actually existed and that hewas this great ANC activist. That is why I went to the head office. JUDGE WILSON: ... confirmed that. I want to know why you suddenly decided to take action against Mr Sefola when theinformation was available to your headquarters and they had nottaken action. Why did you do it? MR VAN VUUREN: This was after interrogating Mr Sefolaand after he made certain admissions to us with regard to his acts. JUDGE WILSON: ... what you had already told us was onthe file, that he had been concerned in landmine explosions, thathe had been concerned in the murder of a policeman. MR VAN VUUREN: This is correct. This was reports frominformants on file at head office. We could not ever prove thisin a court of law. JUDGE WILSON: ... enquiry from head office or from the officers responsible for the district in which Mr Sefola wasas to what should be done to him? JUDGE WILSON: So you took it upon yourself. JUDGE WILSON: ... obtained as a result of torture to goout and kill this man. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. I want to repeat thatmyself, Hechter and Mamasela, this unit was created to combatthese people with everything in our power. JUDGE WILSON: ... for your area, you told us earlier. Now you say you had a general discretion, is that so? You toldus that your unit operated as a hit squad in your area. MR VAN VUUREN: That is the case. JUDGE WILSON: ... in Witbank, outside your area. MR VAN VUUREN: We acted outside of our region becausewe thought it necessary. JUDGE Ngoepe: Where was your office based? MR VAN VUUREN: It was in the old musuem. This musuemwas in the bottom and our offices, the Security Branch officeswere on top, in Pretoria at the old museum. This was the oldPolice Museum. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... to go and interrogate Mr Maake in PienaarsRiver. MR VAN VUUREN: We were looking for a property where we could work with this person far away from anyone else. JUDGE Ngoepe: (Inaudible) away from your office? MR VAN VUUREN: This I can't answer. It was in our area.It was the closest available place that just came to mind. JUDGE Ngoepe: Pienaars River is many kilometres, in theregion of about ....(intervention). MR VAN VUUREN: It is about 70kms. JUDGE Ngoepe: And the nearest available place to you. MR VAN VUUREN: I want to explain again. At that timeI knew that area and it was the closest available place that cameto mind at that time. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... the statement you made to us that initiallythere was no intention at all to kill these people. Do you remembersaying that? MR VAN VUUREN: That was right at the start. We only wantedto interrogate him. JUDGE Ngoepe: If there was no such intention to do that,then I don't understand why you had to take this person so faraway to so isolated a place. MR VAN VUUREN: This person was an informant. We did not want to take the risk that should it turn out that he was nota double agent that other people would be able to see him andrecognise him. That is why we were looking for a somewhat distantplace. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... that initially the intention was notto kill Mr Maake. When you picked up Mr Makope and later Mr Sefola,was the intention to kill each one of them already there, or didit come later? MR VAN VUUREN: We only decided this at a later stage. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... this idea of killing them come to mind? MR VAN VUUREN: This was during the course of interrogation of Mr Sefola that we decided to kill them. JUDGE Ngoepe: In your evidence you said that the firsttwo people - you must tell me if I misheard your evidence - yousaid Maake and Mr Makope were killed in order to make Sefola speak. You said so. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. (BEGINNING OF RECORDINGON TAPE 3A) JUDGE Ngoepe: ... Mr Sefola to speak? MR VAN VUUREN: When we decided we were going to kill them,we decided that we would first kill Maake to gain more informationfrom Sefola. That is the case. JUDGE Ngoepe: I am saying that if Mr Sefola had givenyou the information you wanted, you would not have killed thefirst two people. MR VAN VUUREN: Not so. By that time we had already decided that we were going to kill all of them. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... you could realise whether or not Sefolawas willing to give information? MR VAN VUUREN: No, as I explained, we interrogated Sefola. After we interrogated him, we interrogated Maake and then wekilled Maake. JUDGE WILSON: ... interrogated Maake after Sefola? Becauseyou've never mentioned that before. MR VAN VUUREN: No, that is not what I am saying. WhatI am saying is that while interrogating Sefola, while Maake wassitting there, we decided to kill Maake. JUDGE Ngoepe: I just want to clear this with you. Ifthe purpose of killing the first two people was to cause Mr Sefolato speak, then I assume that the decision to kill them arose afteryou realised that Mr Sefola was not cooperative. MR VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Sefola did cooperate. This wassimply a part of our interrogation. I can't tell you exactlywhy we did it in that way. After we began interrogating him,after we've shocked him with the generator, he began to cooperate. Because they were part of Mr Sefola's cell we did not want anyother persons, other innocent persons to be hurt by them, that'swe decided to kill them. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... to reconcile that answer you've justgiven me, with what you said earlier on in chief and also to whatI've asked so many times, namely that the person of killing thefirst two people was to cause Mr Sefola to speak. CHAIRMAN: That was also a purpose, though the intentionto kill the other two had already been - he had already arrivedat that intention, simply because they were part of a cell andyou had made up your mind you were going to destroy the cell. But you wanted Sefola to see first how his colleagues were killedso that he might answer your questions more readily. MR VAN VUUREN: That is in fact the case. Just that whichhas been stated to me just now, that Sefola had to see how wekilled them. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... was that the reason for killing wasthat you wanted to exterminate the cell. Are you agreeing tothat? MR VAN VUUREN: This was indeed the main reason. JUDGE Ngoepe: Did you in the end exterminate the cell? MR VAN VUUREN: We killed these three persons and an additionalperson at a later stage, so we eliminated four persons of thiscell, but I cannot remember the size of the cell or the number of persons in the cell. At this stageI simply cannot remember. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... got further information about the extentand activities of the cell, if you killed these three people? MR VAN VUUREN: Do you mean at this point in time? JUDGE Ngoepe: You killed three people whom you say comefrom the same cell and you decided to kill ... What would beyour other source of information about that cell, if you exterminatethe people that you've now got into your hands coming from thatcell? MR VAN VUUREN: Mr Sefola was the leader of the cell andhe gave the information of the cell available to us so we knewwhere the other persons were. As I've explained, we knew wherethese other persons were, we knew what their names were, not necessarilyparticular addresses, but we had their names. JUDGE Ngoepe: You told or it was put to you by Mr Mpshe that, I believe it was Mr Makope, when he was picked up therewas a lady in the car, and your answer was that you could notrecall that. MR VAN VUUREN: I can't remember this woman. It is quitepossible, but I cannot remember it. JUDGE Ngoepe: Did you identify yourself as the policeto him when you took him out of your car? MR VAN VUUREN: I did not remove him from his vehicle. That was Sergeant Mamasela. As I've already explained, we whiteSecurity Police persons stayed in the kombi, and the black SecurityPolice officers made the arrest and that was particularly SergeantMamasela. JUDGE Ngoepe: As far as you know - or let me put it toyou this way. After he was brought to you, did you identify yourselfas a policeman to him? MR VAN VUUREN: As Security Police officers, yes. Thedriver's licence that was arranged for the deceased, Maake, wasit supposed to convince traffic officers, for example, on theroad that he was a genuinely licensed driver? MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed. At that time he was an informantof the Security Branch. We could not afford him being arrestedfor a traffic offence without a licence. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... vehicle, I did not follow. MR VAN VUUREN: We obtained a vehicle for him. Whetherwe purchased it or not is a different question, but it was a Regulation86 vehicle which was then a stolen vehicle that no one claimedat the police and the Security Police then used these vehiclesin its operations. JUDGE Ngoepe: ... given to him to use. MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we gave it to Mr Maake to use. Indeedhe used it. We built a hidden compartment into the vehicle tomove arms from Botswana. MR DE JAGER: Did he take this vehicle home, did he drivearound in it? MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed he drove around with this vehicle. He went home with the vehicle. He used it for personal use also,as if it was his own vehicle indeed. MR DE JAGER: So his neighbours and his parents would have known of this vehicle? MR VAN VUUREN: They would have known of this vehicle. It was a Ford Cortina Station Wagon. MR DE JAGER: This hidden compartment which you built intothe vehicle beforehand, was this with the intent that he couldsmuggle arms into the country? MR DE JAGER: So he was supposed to smuggle arms into the country under your instructions. MR VAN VUUREN: Not so. He was going to bring the armsinto the country, then the arms would have come to us and thenwe would have used these arms one way or another. We would havebooby-trapped them and then we would have given it back to him,he would not have known of the booby-trap and he would then haveburied the arms to be picked up by ANC terrorists and then whenthey used the weapons it would have blown up in their faces. MR DE JAGER: ... post-mortem report, have you got otherstoo in connection with this case, or not? MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, thatis the only post-mortem report that I have in the documents thatI was given. MR DE JAGER: Because the body couldn't be identified butit is the body of a male whose reputed age was 30 to 35 years. MR MPSHE: That is so, that is the only one that I have. JUDGE WILSON: There is reference in the post-mortem reportto two other corpses. The last paragraph, "Additional observations". MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, Ihave just been made aware that the other post-mortem reports areattached. I took the first one as being the only one that wasavailable. As I looked at the other documents that were in Ithought these were only the inquest reports, but they are alsoattached. CHAIRMAN: Of what evidential value is then when it refersto somebody who is supposed to be about 30 to 35 years old? Whodid you say this referred to, do you know? MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the post-mortems are attached toan inquest that was held and on the inquest there is also no mentionof the names. It just says, the person unknown and 35 years. JUDGE WILSON: Do the other post-mortem reports that yousay you have give ages? MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, they do. MR MPSHE: The other one is aged 30 to 35 and the otherone indicates as aged 32 years. Still no names disclosed as whothese people were. The whole inquest just indicates "unknown,unknown person". MR DE JAGER: So you've got two reports of persons of theage 30 to 35, is that correct? MR DE JAGER: And the other one, 30 to? MR MPSHE: The other one is 35, the other one is 32. JUDGE Ngoepe: Mr Currin, can I ask you something whilethey are still looking at the document? What are your instructionsfrom Maake's mother with regard to the question of a vehicle,his use of a vehicle? I haven't heard that being put to thewitness. MR CURRIN: ... opportunity to raise one or two furtherpoints that have arisen as a result of subsequent cross-examination,put something to him, and I am quite happy to do that now whilewe are waiting. We do have instructions on that point. JUDGE Ngoepe: Mr Van Vuuren, for how long did Maake usethis vehicle? MR VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult to say. I wouldguess that it was immediately from his return from training in Botswana, for about three, maybe five months. I wouldnot be able to say exactly. MS KHAMPEPE: Warrant Officer Van Vuuren, for how longhad Maake been an informant of the Security Police prior to himbeing sent to Botswana for training? MR VAN VUUREN: I don't know. I would not be able to say. I took him over from Warrant Officer Van Wyk immediately afterhis recruiting, but I don't know how long after his recruitmentthis would have been. MS KHAMPEPE: (Question not recorded) MS KHAMPEPE: I want you to explain to us what the procedurewas for the conveyance of information by informers to the SecurityPolice. MR VAN VUUREN: It usually worked in this way. The informantwould at certain specified times, say, early in the morning, maybeat twelve o'clock at night, maybe late at night, the informantwould arrive at a particular place where his handler, the SecurityPoliceman who handles him, would then meet with him. MS KHAMPEPE: Were informants not expected at all to makea call at the Security Offices if they had urgent and relevantinformation? MR VAN VUUREN: No, for that purpose they had a phone number,the phone number of his handler, and he could phone that numberif there was some urgent matter. MS KHAMPEPE: How many times had Mr Maake made these unwelcomedvisits that led to your drawing conclusions about his good intentionsas an informer? MR VAN VUUREN: Probably four or five times. MS KHAMPEPE: How were they spaced, the five times thatyou mention, was that weekly or monthly or was that in a short spaceof time in a particular week? MR VAN VUUREN: I would say that it happened over the courseof maybe two months, a month to two months, I am not quite sure. MS KHAMPEPE: ... order to the informer to investigateMr Maake with regard to his double agency status? MR VAN VUUREN: Let me explain this. Mr Hechter, Mr Mamaselaand myself worked in one corner of the offices. I wouldn't beable to say how many, but there were about 200 staff persons onthis branch. All of these were handlers of informants, some had10 informants, others had two informants. Every morning Mr Hechterand myself would sit in a meeting with Colonel Loots, our CommandingOfficer. The informant reports with regard to the most importantinformation out of the reports would have been given to ColonelLoots. He would have written this down in a diary for the conferenceimmediately after that. It was never my informant that gave thisinformation that Maake might be a double agent. Nor can I rememberwhose informant it was. In view of the clandestine nature ofthe operation we didn't ask whose informant gave the information. We were concerned about leaks out of the Security Police. MS KHAMPEPE: How did you come to be aware of this information? This is what you state in your affidavit. You became suspiciousof this guy and your suspicion was later confirmed on the reportsreceived from an informer. MR VAN VUUREN: That is, as I have explained. In the mornings,while everyone met, the previous days - with regard to what happenedthe previous day and night, this information would have been madeknown to us in this general meeting and we would the have been told that we had tobe careful in view of our activities. Colonel Loots knew whatwe were doing, and he then called us and told us that we had tobe careful because there was information that Maake was a doubleagent. MS KHAMPEPE: When and where was the landmine obtainedthat blasted the three bodies of the activists? MR VAN VUUREN: Through the activities of myself and CaptainHechter, we normally had explosives, landmines, AK47 rifles andso forth which we had available in our vehicle. MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying that even though you had nointention initially to kill the three activists, you neverthelesscarried the bombs and the rifles and all kinds of ammunition? Was that the way you operated? MR VAN VUUREN: Captain Hechter is an explosives expertand he usually had a large amount of explosives with him in thevehicle. In the nature of the case he was called out to placeswhere bombs might have been and we then used these explosivesto get rid of this bomb or possible bomb. Captain Hechter alwayshad explosives in the back of his vehicle. MS KHAMPEPE: You've also given evidence that you had totie the feet of the activists during the interrogation and thefirst day of Mr Maake's interrogation he was left in the companyof, I think it is Warrant Officer Tshalela, and the other warrantofficer. Were these people armed? Were the security officersarmed? MR VAN VUUREN: They were not warrant officers, they wereconstables, they were armed. They had their usual 9mm pistolswith them. MS KHAMPEPE: ... necessary to still tie the activists'feet when you had two constables who were fully armed? MR VAN VUUREN: We were scared that they would run away. MS KHAMPEPE: ... the fact that you had two constables. MR VAN VUUREN: Your Honour, if there would have been ashootout, which we wanted to prevent, we acted in a preventiveway. We rather tied them than to explain later on. MR CURRIN: I just want to put it to you that from theinstructions we have from Elizabeth Maake, who is Jackson Maake'smother, she never ever saw him drive a motor vehicle, he neverever brought a motor vehicle home. MR VAN VUUREN: That is untrue. The vehicle was in MrMaake's possession for a considerable time. I can't understandhow she can say that she never saw it. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, we have here copies of a photographwhich we have now discussed and have got permission from Mrs Maaketo hand it up to you and to show a copy of the photograph to thiswitness and to ask him whether he can identify Jackson Maake. So with your permission ....(intervention). CHAIRMAN: I think we should first find out whether weare talking about the same person before you start handing upthe photograph. MR CURRIN: That's the purpose, we don't know, becausethere seem to be a number of contradictions. The fact that MrsMaake says her son never ever left the country, he was in Std8 at school at the time, we want to check to make sure it is thesame person. We have five copies. I will hand one to my colleagueand three to you and one to the witness. You said in evidence that if you saw him in a photograph you wouldbe able to identify him. I have two questions. The The first one is, is he in that photograph? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, he is on the photo. MR CURRIN: Which one is he? Point to the photographand indicate. MR VAN VUUREN: It is that one. (Witness indicates) Yes, the one who is sitting like this. (Indicates) JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, could you perhaps tell us ifthat's the information that you have as well. MR CURRIN: That is the information that we have; I haveconfirmed that. JUDGE Ngoepe: When was this photograph taken? MR CURRIN: It was actually taken, according to our instructions,six months before he disappeared, not two years. CHAIRMAN: ... be handed in as EXHIBIT G. Thiswill be handed in as EXHIBIT H. MR CURRIN: A general statement was made during cross-examinationwhich I think I may have misunderstood but I would like to justget clarity on what the witness said. If I may ask one more question. The witness spoke about a modus operandi as to what theydid with the arms and ammunition that in general terms were returnedto your office, and you said that you booby-trapped weapons andhid them away, planted them somewhere so that if an activist pickedthem up and used those weapons they would blow themselves up. Did I understand you correctly? Is that what you did with armsthat came into your possession? CHAIRMAN: I think he was talking about the arms that werebrought in by Maake from Swaziland. MR CURRIN: I just want clarity. Is that what they did? They just booby-trapped them and hid them away and if they were found the person who found them could use them and be blownup, an unidentified target, is that the extent of your evidence? MR VAN VUUREN: No. I never received weapons from Mr Maake. It was the modus operandi if an informant did bring weaponsin they were first brought to the offices of the Security Police,they were then booby-trapped, then they were given back to theinformant without his knowledge and he then went and buried it. MR CURRIN: They were buried for some unidentified targetto pick up and use and blow him or herself up, without knowingwho the potential target would be, is that what you are saying? MR VAN VUUREN: No. If those weapons were buried, thepersons who later came in and used them they would know exactlywhere to find the weapons. That is how the ANC worked at thatstage. MR CURRIN: If my son were to be playing in the field andhe were to find arms that have been hidden and he were to pickup something and see whether it worked, would he blow himselfup? That is what I am trying to establish. They were booby-trapped,hid in the field somewhere. Anybody could find them, that iswhat I am trying to establish. MR VAN VUUREN: As I said, it was not the case that anybodycould find it. Persons who later came in to find it, would knowexactly where to find it, but if the boy would have been to findit in the veld he could have been injured, that is correct. JUDGE WILSON: I have some problem with this though. AsI understand your evidence, this was part of the normal delivery. Maake brought weapons in, he would have instructions to leave them at a certain place where the next activistwould come and fetch them, and that is what you mean when - heleft them at a specified place so they could be passed on to thepeople who were going to use them. Is that your evidence? MR VAN VUUREN: That's what I am saying. JUDGE WILSON: Surely, once they get a batch of booby-trappedweapons, they are immediately going to blame your informant forthis? MR VAN VUUREN: It is possible that they could blame him. That is possible. JUDGE WILSON: ... using your informant to possibly killsome people and possibly to get killed himself. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That is the kind of warwe were fighting and that was also the war they were fighting. There were no rules in this war. (COMMENCEMENT OF RECORDING TAPE3B) MR DE JAGER: ... the young man disappeared according tohis mother ... MR CURRIN: On the 13th July 1987. Mr Van Vuuren, couldyou just describe to the Committee and everybody here how weaponswere normally hidden away in a case. Would it be possible fora schoolboy to pick it up in the veld? MR VAN VUUREN: No, it is highly unlikely. Weapons wereusually wrapped in tin foil, they were wrapped in plastic andthen they were put in a hole approximately a metre and a halfdeep. They were buried in the earth. MR CURRIN: Was it completely covered with earth? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, the hole was covered with earth andusually they had cross-references to find the place. If you didnot know about the place there is no way you could ever MR CURRIN: In other words a schoolboy could not easilyfind them in the veld. MR VAN VUUREN: No, the chances were zero for that. MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, the persons who were informantsof the Security Branch, to whom was it known that they were informantsof the Security Branch? MR VAN VUUREN: It was known to his handler and to thesection head and also to Security Headquarters. MR CURRIN: Would such an informant for example have toldhis family that he was an informant? MR VAN VUUREN: It was highly unlikely because he wouldhave been killed. MR CURRIN: And if an informant like Maake, as heard, wasa schoolboy, if he was driving around with a car, would he havedisclosed the place where he found the car to his family? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I believe so, but I do not believethat he would have received the car from us. MR CURRIN: Would he have told his family where he gotthe car? MR VAN VUUREN: No, he would not. MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, I ask you because you are theperson with the experience, you know how informants worked. Ionly ask your opinion for what it is worth and I would later argueabout it. Would you see it as a possibility under the circumstancesif we accept that Maake received the vehicle from you, somebodywho did not usually have a vehicle, would you say that it is apossibility that he would have disclosed where he got the carto his family? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I believe he would disclose it tohis family. If Mr Maake was indeed a schoolboy he was very seldomin school. He often saw us in the mornings. MR CURRIN: Where did you usually see Mr Maake? MR VAN VUUREN: Usually in the Holiday Inn in Pretoria. There was a postbox at the post office where he could leave amessage for us. He could just put the letter in the letterbox. The box was opened every morning to see if there was any informationin it and then after he received the car we met him at variousplaces. I cannot remember exactly where. MR CURRIN: Did he give you information regarding peoplewho were in schools or were involved with schools or was the informationmuch wider than that? MR VAN VUUREN: No, we did not work with that section. Our section was busy with ANC and black power activities. MR CURRIN: Was that the information he gave to you? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that was the information he startedwith. MR CURRIN: Did he ever on your request come to the officesof the Security Branch? MR VAN VUUREN: No, I never asked him to come there becausewe were afraid for his identity. MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, did Mr Sefola, when you questionedhim, when you interrogated him and when you were shocking him,did he disclose some information to you? Mr Sefola. MR VAN VUUREN: (Answer not recorded) MR CURRIN: ... after Mr Maake was shocked to death beforeMr Sefola, did he disclose further information to you which hedid not disclose earlier? MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, you have given testimony thatthe place where the interrogation occurred, was a place that waswell-known to you, is that correct? MR CURRIN: Is that another reason why you used the place? MR VAN VUUREN: That is the case. MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, this particular cell, this Sefola,Maake, Makope cell, did they operate in your area as well, didthey commit any acts in your area? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, there were acts of terror committedin our area. MR CURRIN: Would that have been a reason for you in yourinvestigations also to engage Sefola although he was living inWitbank? MR VAN VUUREN: That is the case. MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, would it have been practicallypossible during the course of your investigation in view of MrSefola's living in Witbank to call in persons from the Witbankarea Security Police and to hand over the investigation to them? MR VAN VUUREN: No, that was not practicable. MR CURRIN: Would it have been your practice to do so? MR VAN VUUREN: No, in view of the work of myself and MrHechter and Mr Mamasela, this would not have been possible. JUDGE WILSON: ... to have asked the Witbank Security Policewhether the action you proposed to take would interfere with theiroperations? MR VAN VUUREN: If we were to contact them in this regardand if Sefola was then to disappear they would have known it wasus who did it. JUDGE WILSON: ... didn't want the Witbank Security Police to know that you had killed this man? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, you wereasked by Mr Mpshe at a particular point with regard to paged 109and 110 of your document. I am referring to the bottom paragraphon page 109 where you said it was necessary to eliminate activistsin order to protect information gained through the course of interrogation. You did respond to this or you did answer this. Could you lookat the second paragraph on page 110. Could you read that "If activists and terrorists were arrested after makinginformation available, the information routes of the freedom fightersand activists would have changed and the Security Police wouldnot have been able to use this information". Is that in accordance with your answer? MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, you were asked with regardto the fact that you gave additional explanations that were notspecifically referred to in your application. May I refer topage 16 of your written application. Could you read the paragraphon page 16 beginning "Additional information and testimony". MR VAN VUUREN: "I attempted to make this applicationas comprehensive as possible. Any additional information to thefacts herein contained will be given during testimony in frontof the Commission. Aspects, as especially my motives and purposeswould have to be motivated more fully during my testimony. Dueto time limitations linked to this application I will stand bythe content of this MR DU PLESSIS 407 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, you have given testimonywith regard to the instructions which you, Mr Hechter and Mr Mamaselareceived in a general instruction to act as a counter revolutionaryeffort on the part of the government against the liberation movements. The instructions which you received from those that gave themto you were you forced to accept them, were you coerced to takethem? MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I had to obey these instructions. MR DU PLESSIS: From who did your instructions normallycome? MR VAN VUUREN: Normally directly from Captain Hechterand Captain, now Colonel Loots. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you believe that in carrying out theseinstructions would have been part of your task and duties? MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed I believed so. MR DU PLESSIS: If you had to carry out these instructionswhy then did you not carry out Basie Smit's instructions? MR VAN VUUREN: I can only say this. General Basie Smithad come over from a different unit to Security and we did nottrust him. We entirely did not trust him. The people from whomwe received instructions were normally persons whom we trustedand with whom we had worked for an extended period of time. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, was it the task of the SecurityPolice to attempt to transform terrorists into Askari's? Wasthis the task of the Security Police? Or at least was this yourtask of your unit? MR VAN VUUREN: It was not the task of our unit. MR DU PLESSIS: Was there such a unit? MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed, the widely known Vlakplaas Unitwas MR DU PLESSIS 408 J J VAN VUUREN MR DU PLESSIS: During the course of interrogation bothSefola and Makope made the confession to you that Maake was amember of the cell. MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed they did so. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to place one thingon record, perhaps for purposes of Mr Currin. And that is thatin respect of the general motivation under the "politicalmotivations", the general motivation has been included inrespect of eliminations and in respect of bombings, as I haveindicated, in every incident. And that is the reason why I don'tlead that specific evidence. I say that for purposes of Mr Currin. CHAIRMAN: I am sure he has understood that by now. JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Van Vuuren, it was put to you by Mr Currinthat according to the mother Maake was a student. And to a questionput to me earlier on you said that you did not know that he wasa student. MR VAN VUUREN: No, I was not aware of the fact that heattended school. JUDGE NGOEPE: Would that mean that you make use of somebody,if he was really your informer, you made use of somebody as aninformer without knowing what his occupation was? MR VAN VUUREN: He might well have been registered at schoolbut while he was our informant he never attended school. As faras we know it was impossible. He was out of the country for threemonths. JUDGE NGOEPE: As an informer, would you not have goneinto his background to find out what is his occupation? How canyou make somebody your informer without knowing what his occupation is. Forget about whether or not he attended schoolregularly. But surely you must know what the informer's occupationis, if he is your informant. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. Generally speaking, themore militant activists did not work. How can I explain thisto you. We made no attempt to find out what work they did. Weonly wanted to gain information from them. We were interestedin information concerning the struggle, not about their work. JUDGE NGOEPE: ... without establishing his occupation,without knowing what his occupation is? MR VAN VUUREN: Generally speaking the handler would haveknown what his occupation would have been. JUDGE NGOEPE: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: No, Your Honour, I couldn't imagine thathe was going to school. If I remember correctly. he told meand Captain Hechter that he was unemployed. And that is whyhe decided to earn money. We paid him a good salary and thatis why he decided to become an informant. JUDGE NGOEPE: ... try to go into his background? MR VAN VUUREN: No, I did not investigate his background. JUDGE NGOEPE: (Question inaudible) MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we would have known his address. JUDGE NGOEPE: (Question inaudible) JUDGE NGOEPE: ... you say according to the file "Itappeared that Sefola was a serious supporter of the ANC". This is on page 100. This is at the bottom of the page. Fromthe file it appeared that Sefola was a serious supporter of theANC, activist, organiser and trained terrorist. MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. JUDGE NGOEPE: You sent Mr Mamasela, who apparently hadnot met Mr Sefola before. MR VAN VUUREN: No, he had not met him previously. JUDGE NGOEPE: Notwithstanding the description that yougive to us of Sefola as a trained terrorist, as you put it, MrMamasela in two hours' time has convinced him and he has won hisconfidence and he comes back. MR VAN VUUREN: We determined from the file where Mr Sefolaworked and where he lived. If I remember correctly, we also provideda photograph to Mr Mamasela of Mr Sefola. Mr Mamasela was a verywell-trained operative. Since Mr Sefola was a very active activistit was not difficult for Mr Mamasela to convince Mr Sefola toaccompany him. When you meet Mr Mamasela you will understandthis. You will understand why I say this when you meet Mr Mamasela. JUDGE NGOEPE: ... to convince a small child, a total strangerin two hours' - to win a small child's confidence -let alone ahighly trained terrorist. MR VAN VUUREN: Mr Mamasela was a trained terrorist, heunderstood how it worked in these circles. That is why it wouldhave been easier for him to pick up Mr Sefola, than for instancea black Security policeman who had not been an Askari. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I request that I just clarifytwo points before the witness stands down? MR MPSHE: Mr Van Vuuren, you have testified, or it isin your application that the bodies were blown up in an area inBophuthatswana. You remember that? MR VAN VUUREN: Do I know where is it? MR MPSHE: The said the bodies were blown up in an areain MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR MPSHE: ... move from the place where these people wereinterrogated and killed, how long did you travel to the spot wherethe bodies were blown up? MR VAN VUUREN: I would guess an hour, three quarters ofan hour. Somewhere between an hour and three quarters of an houror an hour. MR MPSHE: ... you travelled to the blowing up spot. MR VAN VUUREN: Not the part in Bophuthatswana, I did not know that, but the surrounding areas towards the road towardsBophuthatswana I did know. MR MPSHE: I put it to you that the area or the place wherethe bodies were blown up is known as Jericho, would you disputethat? It is in Bophuthatswana. MR VAN VUUREN: I would not know whether this was thecase or not. MR MPSHE: From the evidence you have given I gatheredthe impression that the bodies were placed together on the landmineand simultaneously blown up, am I correct on that? MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR MPSHE: I have in my possession two post-mortem reportswhich I am going to hand up after explaining to the Court. Thesetwo post-mortems are linked to the one that has been handed upto the Court as EXHIBIT G. Would you say it is possiblethat the three post-mortems relate to the three persons who wereblown up in that area of Jericho? Can you draw that inferencesafely? MR VAN VUUREN: It is possible, I suppose. MR MPSHE: ... in my possession two other post-mortem reports that emanate from the same inquest as Exhibit G. UnfortunatelyI have no made copies, but these I am going to make copies ofand hand them up later on and for my colleagues as well and thesewill be numbered EXHIBIT I AND J. JUDGE NGOEPE: We can make that inference I suppose, MrMpshe, but whether it will be a safe inference is another thing. MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. That I will leave to the Committee because as I have put to himthat the three bodies were found in that area, not complete ofcourse, I will leave to the Committee to come with that inference. I don't know how safe that would be. I would agree to that. CHAIRMAN: When one bears in mind that it is describedthey are bodies of people who are adults and who are over 25,30, 35 years old, and at least on the information placed beforeus, one of them, Mr Maake, must have been very, very young. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I would not argue with the Chairon that one, but Mr Chairman that is the evidence put ... CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we will take the adjournment at thisstage. You will hand them in when we resume. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may the witness be excused? We just want to know if we may talk to him over lunchtime. MR DU TOIT: (BEGINNING OF RECORDING ON TAPE 4 SIDE B -NO RECORDING ON TAPE 4 SIDE A) Thank you Chair. Having consultedwith my seniors, the attitude would be the same, namely, and Iwant to place it on record. As you will remember, on Mondaywhen the application was made to subpoena the witnesses, thesewere particularly 204 witnesses under the State Witness ProtectionProgramme. These 204 witnesses are co-deeders of the applicants. As you will also remember, the position of the State from thebeginning would have been that there would have been an objectionand that there would have been the request not to subpoena thesetestimonies, since these would be key witnesses in the State'scase. If amnesty is denied and it is possible to prosecute, thenthey would be the key witnesses. It was the position of the Attorney-Generalthat should this Committee decide to subpoena these witnessesand if they were to give testimony, the Attorney-General wouldrest in that decision. The difference, however, is that Mr Currin's witnesses are simplymembers of the family, they are relatives of the victims. Theseare not persons who were present on the scene of any of the deeds. These are simply persons who will say that we had children orhusbands who went missing at a certain stage until during thecourse of this year has the State obtained statements, it becamepossible to determine where these family members might be. Thereason why Mr Currin is calling these witnesses is not to givealternative testimony since they were not present at the events,but to consider some of the reparations that might be made tothese persons if it is determined at a later stage that they were in fact victims. In that case the Attorney-General'sposition would be that there is a fundamental difference betweenthe 204 witnesses whom the applicants intended to subpoena andthese witnesses who simply will bring testimony that they lostthese family members through some or other act. This, then, is the position of the Attorney-General in this particularcase. I don't know if you wanted to ask me any additional questionsin this regard. JUDGE WILSON: They are not strictly speaking witnesses,are they? Are these people not persons who should have been given notice in terms of 19(4) of their right to be present and totestify and they are taking advantage of that? MR DU TOIT: Indeed this is the case. CHAIRMAN: I understand you to say that they are not witnesseswho fall in the category of section 204 witnesses? CHAIRMAN: And that therefore strictly speaking you arenot raising an objection. MR DU TOIT: That is also the case. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Du Toit, is it also not true that thesewitnesses might be able to throw more light on whether the offencesin respect of which amnesty is being sought by the applicant isan act associated with a political objective in terms of section19(4)? MR DU TOIT: That might well be the case. UnfortunatelyI would not be able to make a statement in this regard since Iam not part of this hearing. I am simply here to take notes andto see what the givens are of this application. Whether theymight be able to enlighten the committee with regard to any ofthese matters, that would depend on the CHAIRMAN: Mr Du Toit, there is no reason why you can beprecluded or in any way precluded from these proceedings. Shouldyou feel at any stage that you would like to enlighten this Committeeon information that you have relating to the evidence or witnessesor questions you might want to put to witnesses, then I see noreason why you should be precluded from doing so. MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chair. I will convey this to theAttorney-General. MR DE JAGER: Mr Du Toit, the previous application waswhether these persons should be subpoenaed. Mr Mamasela is afurther person implicated, whom in terms of article 19(4) wouldalso have the right out of his own to bring testimony. The question,however, is whether permission would force him through a subpoenato give testimony and in that regard we made a ruling. Thereis, however, nothing that stands in the way of anyone in termsof article 19(4) to bring testimony. MR DU TOIT: That is also the case, Mr De Jager, and thatis why we want to say that our attitude is that the grounds onwhich Mr Currin is bringing this testimony is particularly sincethey are the victims in this case and it would be proper to categorisethem as victims for further steps. On these grounds we have noobjections at this moment. CHAIRMAN: Mr Currin, you may proceed. MR DU TOIT: Mr Chair, just directly to reply to Mr DeJager. You will remember when Adv Pretorious addressed you hedid so in that he had contact with the 204 witnesses and thatat that time they had indicated that should the Commission subpoenathem they would be willing to bring testimony, but they would not be willing to bring voluntary testimonyin view of their being State witnesses and that is why there isa fundamental difference between the current witnesses who arevictims and who are allowed by the Act to bring testimony. CHAIRMAN: Similarly in this case here. The ladies whoare here and who are related to the deceased may very well want,despite the fact that they are State witnesses in a trial whichmay take place, they would like to come here and give evidence. And I don't know whether there is any power that can preventthem from doing so. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to say, the factthat I raised the point was not to preclude them from giving evidence. I raised the point to show, according to the applicants, thatthe Attorney-General's view on this is inconsistent. MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don't want to get into adebate with that. I must say, however, as I recall the argumentof the Attorney-General was that if the State witnesses wouldgive evidence his case would be prejudiced. I don't actuallysee the reason for us going into a debate on that. I just wantto place on record that I differ from the Attorney-General andthat we still fail to see the difference between any of the Statewitnesses. If the argument was that the case of the State wouldbe prejudiced that would be the case in respect of all the witnesses. But we will abide by the decision of the Committee and the victimscan testify. MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We would then callElizabeth Maake. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, the witness would like to testifyin her mother tongue, which is Pedi. I have made the arrangementwith the interpreter. CHAIRMAN: Please tell her that she must answer the questionsas you put them and she must wait for the questions to be translatedto her. EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mrs Maake, you must only answerquestions as and when they are put to you, either by myself orby one of the members of the Committee or by the lawyer who isrepresenting the applicant. So please wait for the question beforeyou give any answers. Mrs Maake, you are the mother of JacksonMaake, is that correct? MRS MAAKE: Jackson was born in 1968. MR CURRIN: When did you last see your son? MRS MAAKE: The last time I saw him was in 1987 on the13th July. MR CURRIN: Can you explain to the Committee what happenedon that day before he left. MRS MAAKE: When he left home I was on my way to work. He stayed with me and said I must give him R10. I did so. Thatwas the last time I saw him. He left on Wednesday. I kept askingpeople whether they did see him or not. On Saturday I enquiredfrom his friends and they did not know of his whereabouts. Itwas the first time he left home for about three days. He didn'teven sleep at home. He was a student or a scholar. MR CURRIN: Which school did he go to? MRS MAAKE: I can't remember the name of the school. MR CURRIN: Where was the school? MRS MAAKE: The school is situated in Mamelodi. MR CURRIN: Do you know the name of the street in whichthe school is? MRS MAAKE: I do know the street's name. I did go to townto enquire about the papers or the relevant documents at thisschool. MR CURRIN: What is the name of the street in which theschool is? MR CURRIN: In what class or standard was your son? MRS MAAKE: In Form 3. He was in Std 8, Form 3. MR CURRIN: How did he do at school generally? MRS MAAKE: He was doing well at school. MR CURRIN: You heard evidence this morning by the applicants,and in particular Mr Van Vuuren, that your son had left the countryfor training for a period of three months. Do you have any commentto make in that regard? MRS MAAKE: That is not true. He never left even for abouttwo days. This surprises me to hear that he left the countryfor about three months. It was the first time that he left homefor about three days then I started searching for him. MR CURRIN: Did he have a driver's licence as far as you know? CHAIRMAN: Whether he had a motor car. MRS MAAKE: He didn't have a car and I have never seena car and I don't have a child who owns a car. MR CURRIN: Did anyone in the neighbourhood of Mamelodiever say to you that they had seen your son driving around ina motor car? MRS MAAKE: No one have ever seen him driving a car. Wehaven't seen him driving a car within the family. MR CURRIN: You also heard evidence this morning that yourson was politically active within the township of Mamelodi, isthat correct? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean was he active in Mamelodi? MR CURRIN: ... in the form of politics? MRS MAAKE: I don't know. I don't know about his politicalactivities. I only remember that he was arrested and we weretold to return them to school. They were out of school for aboutthree days. That is all I can remember. MR CURRIN: You say he was arrested. Was he charged? What was he charged with? MRS MAAKE: It was a group of scholars. MR CURRIN: What was the case against them? MRS MAAKE: They were saying they didn't want to continuewith their classes, they didn't want to write tests because theysaid they didn't want Afrikaans. MR CURRIN: Did they go to court? MRS MAAKE: Yes, they did go to court. They were arrested,then they were released on free bail and the case was closed thenthey said we should take them to school. MR CURRIN: Did you know the families of Makope or Sefola? MRS MAAKE: We don't know each other. We began to knoweach other immediately after this incident. Mrs Makope triedto find me through the directory, after seeing on the newspaperthat our children were killed, so we don't know each other. Westarted to know each other during this case. MR CURRIN: When did you hear that they had been killed? MRS MAAKE: We learnt in January on the 28th they werekilled. We knew in 1996. MR CURRIN: Do you have a husband? MRS MAAKE: I don't have a husband. MR CURRIN: And who supports you? MRS MAAKE: I have nobody who takes care of me and I amnot working. He has his own child. MR CURRIN: Is that your husband? MR CURRIN: So Jackson had a son. MRS MAAKE: His daughter is 11 years old. MR CURRIN: So Jackson had a very small daughter of abouta year old when he disappeared, is that what you are saying? MRS MAAKE: Yes, that's true. Because now she is 11 yearsold, she was born on the 21st July. MR CURRIN: And have you been looking after that daughtersince the time that Jackson disappeared? MRS MAAKE: I am the one who is responsible for his supportand education. I was working at that time and I was able to takecare of her that time. I completed a year without working. MR CURRIN: The mother of the child, do you know whereshe is? MRS MAAKE: Yes, I know. She is just a girlfriend, butI know where she stays, but the child stays with me. She doesn'tstay with the mother, she stays with me. MR CURRIN: And you have full financial responsibilityfor that child. MRS MAAKE: Yes, that's true. I am taking care of her. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN MR CURRIN: There are other people that may wish to askyou questions. If you could just wait for a short while. CHAIRMAN: Is Jackson's father still alive? CHAIRMAN: And are you absolutely clear that your son didnot possess a motor car? MRS MAAKE: He didn't have a car. I haven't seen him atall with a car. Even his brothers don't have cars now. CHAIRMAN: Do you know whether he could drive? MRS MAAKE: I haven't seen him driving a car. Even hisfriends didn't have cars. They were always on foot all the time. CHAIRMAN: What work did you do to support yourself andyour family? MRS MAAKE: I was working at (indistinct). MRS MAAKE: It is contractual work. I was working at (indistinct). I started working there in 1980 up to last year. CHAIRMAN: What sort of work did you do? CHAIRMAN: Homes or offices or what? MRS MAAKE: We were doing the offices, at the factory. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, the workyou were doing, what hours did you work? When did you start work? MRS MAAKE: 1980, Sir. I stopped working last year. CHAIRMAN: What time of the day do you start work and whattime do you finish? MRS MAAKE: We were starting at six o'clock. I am knockingoff at around two or around one, but at times I worked the CHAIRMAN: I asked you your hours of work. Did you startat six o'clock in the morning or six o'clock in the evening? MRS MAAKE: Six o'clock in the evening. CHAIRMAN: (Question inaudible) MRS MAAKE: Around one to two. It depends when we completeour duty. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you go home after two o'clock? Whendid you arrive home? MRS MAAKE: We were going home in the morning, we weretaking the train to home in the morning. MR DU PLESSIS: What time did you usually arrive at home? MRS MAAKE: Usually arrived at around half past four. MR DU PLESSIS: And where were you during the day usually? MRS MAAKE: At times I used to sleep, from there I willdo the house chores. Because I used to take the child to thecreche, so I'll be able to do the household work. MR DU PLESSIS: And your son Jackson, at what time in themorning did he leave for school? MRS MAAKE: He was going to school around seven, at timesquarter to seven. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you take him to school? MRS MAAKE: He was going independently. MR DU PLESSIS: And when did he return from school usually? MRS MAAKE: At times two to half past three. MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and other times? MRS MAAKE: That was his usual time. MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mrs Maake, do you still have in yourpossession school reports of Jackson Maake, of your child, ofyour son? MRS MAAKE: There were people who came to look for his reports so they took them from me in town. MR DU PLESSIS: Who were those people? MRS MAAKE: I don't know the person who took them. Theyjust said I should go to town and take them so they have giventhem to me. MR DU PLESSIS: So you don't know who you gave the schoolreports to. Somebody came to ask you for the school reports andyou gave the reports to them, is that right? MRS MAAKE: It is a CID person where we made the statementin town. MR DU PLESSIS: Is it the same person you made a statementto pertaining to the death of your son? MRS MAAKE: The person who came to us for forms is thesecond one. The person who took the statement is Izodwa. MR DU PLESSIS: (Question inaudible) MR DU PLESSIS: Is that his name? MRS MAAKE: He is working in Johannesburg, in the Johannesburgoffices. I don't know his real name. MR DU PLESSIS: Did he say why he wanted the reports? MRS MAAKE: He said they are wanted as whether Jacksonwas a student. Because others are working. MR DU PLESSIS: Was that this year? MRS MAAKE: Yes, it is not long. It is this year. Approximatelytwo months back. MR DU PLESSIS: Who looked after the little baby at night? MRS MAAKE: I am no more working, so I am taking care ofthe baby. MR DU PLESSIS: I am asking at the time. MRS MAAKE: He was taken care of by my sister when I wasworking. And during the day I took him to creche. MR DU PLESSIS: Was that the case during the time justbefore your son went away? MRS MAAKE: I don't understand the question, Sir. MR DU PLESSIS: I am asking who looked after the baby duringthat time just before Jackson disappeared. MRS MAAKE: I was taking care of this baby before Jacksondied. MR DU PLESSIS: I mean at night when you worked, who waslooking after the baby at that time? MRS MAAKE: My sister was taking care of the baby at thattime. MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know what Jackson did at night whenyou were not at home? MRS MAAKE: Usually I would find him asleep. Then I wouldwake him up and say go and wash and go to school. At times hewould wake himself up. MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know what he did earlier in theevening until about twelve o'clock say? MR DU PLESSIS: I didn't hear the answer. Can I repeatthe question? MRS MAAKE: Yes, repeat the question, Sir. MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know what he did during the earlypart of the evenings when you were at work? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean Jackson? MR DU PLESSIS: I mean Jackson, your son. MRS MAAKE: Yes, I know. His aunt used to tell me thathe used to study in the evening. MR DU PLESSIS: Was she living with you? MRS MAAKE: Yes, she was living with me. MR DU PLESSIS: Was the aunt living with you? MRS MAAKE: Yes, she was living with me. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, you don't know what your sondid during the day, do you? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean during the day? MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, during the day. MRS MAAKE: During the day he was at school. MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mrs Maake, but you don't know personallythat he went to school, isn't that right? MRS MAAKE: I knew that he went to school. MR DU PLESSIS: How do you know that? MRS MAAKE: That he goes to school? MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know that he was present at schoolevery day? MRS MAAKE: I used to see him coming back from school andI used to check his books because they called us to a meetingthat we should check their books of the time. MR DU PLESSIS: You never saw him physically going to theschool and you never saw him coming out of the school, isn't thatright? MRS MAAKE: I used to see him. Because when he was absentfrom school the teachers used to write us letters that they wereabsent. MR DU PLESSIS: Which teachers told you that? MRS MAAKE: Can you repeat the question, Sir? MR DU PLESSIS: I understand that the teachers told youthat he was at school. Which teachers told you? JUDGE WILSON: They wrote a letter saying he wasn't atschool. MRS MAAKE: If your child doesn't go to school the teachersused to write you letters that your child doesn't come to school. MR DU PLESSIS: And Mrs Maake do you know that there wereschool boycotts during that time? MRS MAAKE: Yes, there were some boycotts during that time. MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know if your son participated inany of these boycotts? JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, during which time? MR DU PLESSIS: During the time just before his disappearance. I am asking questions around that specific time. All the questionsrelate to that specific time, Mr Chairman. MRS MAAKE: There was a time when there was confusion atthe schools and children were not going to school, but I don'tremember which year. MS KHAMPEPE: I think what counsel wants to know is whetherthere were school boycotts in 1987. MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Your son disappeared on the 13th July1987. Were there any school boycotts shortly before his disappearance? MRS MAAKE: Yes, there were school boycotts during thattime. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, can you remember how frequentlythese school boycotts were? How intense they were. Can you rememberany more detail about the school boycotts? MRS MAAKE: They were very rare. MR DU PLESSIS: Did your son participate in these boycotts? (COMMENCEMENT OF RECORDING ON TAPE 5B) MRS MAAKE: I used to see them going to school and comingback. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, can you dispute the evidenceor do you dispute the evidence of Warrant Officer Van Vuuren MRS MAAKE: I am surprised how he would know him. Maybehe knows him because they used to be arrested. MR DU PLESSIS: How frequently was your son arrested? MRS MAAKE: He was arrested only during that time of theschool boycott. He was never arrested again. MR DU PLESSIS: How many times was he arrested? MRS MAAKE: He was arrested once and there were many schoolchildrenwho were arrested that time. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, you testified that you don'tknow anything about his political activities, is that right? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean in politics? I don't know. MR DU PLESSIS: Did he ever speak to you about that? MRS MAAKE: He didn't tell me anything. MR DU PLESSIS: So you can't dispute the evidence thathe was involved in political activities, can you? MRS MAAKE: I would not dispute, because I didn't know. MR DU PLESSIS: So would you agree with me that it is possiblethat he was involved in political activities and that he mighthave been an informer of the police? MR CURRIN: Sorry, Mr Chairman. How can he ask this witnessto speculate whether or not. CHAIRMAN: Let her answer the question. MRS MAAKE: Will you repeat your question, Sir. MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Mrs Maake, am I right in sayingthat you can't dispute that there is a possibility that your sonwas involved in political activities and that he might have beenan informer of the police? JUDGE WILSON: That's two questions isn't it. She hasanswered the first half already. MRS MAAKE: I dispute that. I dispute that. How cana small child become an informer? MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, if he was old enough to havehad a child, I put it to you that he could have been involvedin politics and could have been an informer as well. MRS MAAKE: I don't agree with that, Sir. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I would just like to make a pointhere, that ...(intervention). CHAIRMAN: You can re-examine her. MR CURRIN: I just believe it is an unfair question inthe sense that it is a matter of argument. To ask her to speculatewhether or not her son could have been an informer is a pointlessexercise, I submit. CHAIRMAN: She said he is not an informer, she doesn'tbelieve that he was an informer. JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, before you move on to somethingelse, if that wouldn't bother you, could I just ask the witnesssomething. You were asked earlier on as to why you think that- or rather you gave an explanation as to why you think Mr VanVuuren could have known your son, how it came about that he couldhave known your son. What did you say about that? MRS MAAKE: I don't understand how they can know each other. My speculation is maybe he knows him because they were takingphotos at some time. JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you. I was just putting that questionbecause I thought the interpretation earlier on said that he mighthave known him because they had been arrested and that was notwhat the witness had said. She had said initially in the firstplace as well, she had said that the reason why Mr Van Vuurencould have known her son was that they had MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand it correctly that the evidencethat she gave that he could have known him because he was arrestedwas wrong? JUDGE NGOEPE: The interpretation was incorrect. MRS MAAKE: I don't understand. JUDGE NGOEPE: You don't have to worry; we understand. Just listen to the next question which Mr Du Plessis is goingto ask you and concentrate on it. MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you M'Lord. Mrs Maake, I put itto you that it was possible that your son might have been involvedin political activities to the extent testified by Mr Van Vuurenwithout you knowing that. I am going to argue that. What doyou say about that? JUDGE WILSON: Implicit in that is that he was outsidethe country for three months without her knowing about it? Areyou going to argue that? MR DU PLESSIS: M'Lord, I haven't put that. I am puttingit on the general basis. MRS MAAKE: My child never disappeared for three months. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I am putting it to you thatit was possible that your son was involved in political activitieswithout you knowing that. MRS MAAKE: But he never left home for three months. Evenif he is two days or one day without us seeing him, all the timehe was always at home. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I also put it to you that itis possible, and I am asking you - well, let me ask you this. Was it possible for your son to have driven a car without youknowing that? MRS MAAKE: Where was he driving the car to, us withoutseeing him. That's what I want to know. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I put it to you that the carcould have been parked at a different place, that he was drivingthe car in the evenings when you weren't at home and that youwouldn't have known about it. MRS MAAKE: The family not knowing? MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I am putting that to you asa possibility. Do you agree that that could have been a possibility,or do you say it is completely impossible? MRS MAAKE: I don't believe that because I've never seenhim in a car. MR DU PLESSIS: So do I understand you correctly, Mrs Maake,do you say that even though you weren't always present, that itis impossible that your son could have driven a car and couldhave parked it in a different place? MRS MAAKE: What time of the day was he driving that carand in which yard was he parking it, because everyday he was sleepingat home. Where did he park the car? Where we didn't even seethat car or his brothers didn't see that car. JUDGE WILSON: If I could interrupt you and ask a questionI think should have been asked at the beginning. Will you tellus Mrs Maake what your family consisted of and who lived in thehome? MRS MAAKE: That's myself, and his two brothers and theother one is now living outside the home. He is having his ownfamily outside. JUDGE WILSON: In 1987, how old were the two brothers? Were they living in the home then in 1987? MRS MAAKE: All of them were staying at home. JUDGE WILSON: How old were the two brothers? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean which age? JUDGE WILSON: In 1987, how old were they? Were they olderor younger than him, than Jackson? MRS MAAKE: They are his elder brothers. The first bornwas born in 1960, the second born was born in 1963 and he hassince died, and then the third one is 1966 and Jackson is 1968. JUDGE WILSON: ... also living in the house with you? MRS MAAKE: Yes, my sister was staying with us at thattime and is still staying with us, still now. JUDGE WILSON: Was there anybody else living in that house,at that time, not now? MRS MAAKE: You mean the one who is not the family member? JUDGE WILSON: ... family members living there in 1987? MRS MAAKE: That's all. All I have mentioned are the peoplewho were staying with. MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. So am I rightin saying that the people who lived in the house was yourself,your son Jackson, his two brothers and your sister? MRS MAAKE: And even his uncle, James Maake. MR DU PLESSIS: Was the uncle living in the house as well? MRS MAAKE: Yes, that's true, even now he is staying withus. MR DU PLESSIS: Were those the only people living in thehouse at that time, Mrs Maake? MR DU PLESSIS: Are you sure about that? MRS MAAKE: Yes, I tell the truth. MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, how do you know that Jackson,your son studied in the evenings? MRS MAAKE: What do you mean by study? I was able to seehim studying. If he was not studying he could have been failingat school. MR DU PLESSIS: Did you personally see him study in theevenings? MRS MAAKE: Yes, I used to see him when I was on leave. MR DU PLESSIS: And other times, how do you know he wasstudying? MRS MAAKE: His aunt was always taking care that he isstudying, even his brothers were taking care that he is studying. MR DU PLESSIS: How was his aunt taking care? MRS MAAKE: He was seeing him. If you are with a childat home all the time you are able to see his movements. MR DU PLESSIS: And where was his aunt living? MRS MAAKE: She was staying with us. MR DU PLESSIS: I asked you just now about three timeswho was living with you at that time. JUDGE WILSON: Her sister would have been his aunt. MRS MAAKE: The people I've counted are the people whowere staying with us. MR DU PLESSIS: When you refer to his aunt you meant yoursister. Is that the same person? MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mrs Maake, did your son go out visitingfriends a lot? MRS MAAKE: Yes, he used to go to his friends, but he wasnot sleeping outside. Any child used to go out and come back. MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no furtherquestions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish toput to this witness? MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, just clarification questions. Mrs Maake, the school attended by your son, Jackson, was it inMamelodi East or Mamelodi West? MRS MAAKE: That's Mamelodi East. I think it is West. MR MPSHE: Would the name Retabele Secondary School meananything to you? MRS MAAKE: It is an upstairs building and I just forgetthe name, but I believe it is Retabele. Yes, I believe so. Itis Retabele Secondary School. MR MPSHE: What is the name of your granddaughter? MRS MAAKE: Her name is Christina Maake. MR MPSHE: Is she school-going? MRS MAAKE: Yes, she is at school. MRS MAAKE: She is doing Std 4. MR MPSHE: Who pays for her schooling in general? MRS MAAKE: I pay the school fees. At times my sisterpays the school fees. MR MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps you can help here before I ask her. Did she provide the photograph? You have given us a photographshowing your son at some function, do you remember that photograph? JUDGE WILSON: I don't want to distress the witness. MR CURRIN: She gave us the photograph this morning, Sir. JUDGE WILSON: The photograph you gave this morning, doyou JUDGE WILSON: Is your son wearing his school blazer andwhat looks like a school tie? Is that the school blazer and theschool tie? MRS MAAKE: No, Sir. These are just ordinary clothes. MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Maake, when the photograph of your sonwas taken as you have alleged by the police, was this taken duringhis arrest that you have referred to in your evidence? MRS MAAKE: No, I don't believe so, he was still at homeat that time. MS KHAMPEPE: How did the police have a photograph of MrMaake? MS KHAMPEPE: In your evidence you have stated ... MRS MAAKE: Which one, which photo? MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Maake, in your evidence you have statedthat the reason why Mr Van Vuuren would have been able to pointout who Mr Maake was because he had a photograph. MRS MAAKE: I think so. That's why they know them. MS KHAMPEPE: ... no knowledge where would he have gotthis photograph? Wouldn't you have got this photograph when yourson was arrested during the school boycott? MRS MAAKE: The photo I give you this morning? MS KHAMPEPE: The photograph that you have referred toin your evidence in chief. MRS MAAKE: What surprised me is that how do this policemanknow these people. We went to see the place where they werekilled. MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Maake, was Mr Maake, your son, financially5B - did/... - did he have money during his schooling in 1987? MRS MAAKE: No, he didn't even have a cent. He was walkingbarefoot to school at times, and sometimes he was walking to schoolwhen I don't have money to pay for transport. MS KHAMPEPE: Did you provide a daily stipend for him? MRS MAAKE: Yes, I used to give him money all the time,but when I don't have money he used to walk to school becausethey used to go to school with a taxi. If I don't have moneyhe would walk to school with his friends. MS KHAMPEPE: So from what you could observe of your sonhe didn't appear to have money to throw around. MRS MAAKE: All the time he used to ask me money, eventhe last day he was asking me to give him R10. He didn't evensleep on the bed. MS KHAMPEPE: The two brothers, your two sons, who areaged 27 and 24 as at 1987 when David was killed, were they attendingschool? MRS MAAKE: They were not going to school at that time. MS KHAMPEPE: ... Jackson who was attending school. MS KHAMPEPE: ... give you reports on Jackson because hewas a scholar and gave you daily reports on ... MRS MAAKE: Yes, she was giving me a report on a dailybasis. JUDGE NGOEPE: Did they put on uniform to go to school? MRS MAAKE: Yes, they were wearing uniform, grey and white. JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you buy him uniform for the year 1987? MRS MAAKE: No, I didn't buy him uniform in 1987. He wasstill wearing the 1986 clothes. JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you buy him books for the year 1987? MRS MAAKE: We were not buying books, we were getting books JUDGE NGOEPE: You were paying school fees. MRS MAAKE: Yes, we were paying. JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you pay any school fees in respect ofthe year 1987? In the year that he disappeared, that year, didyou pay school fees for him? MRS MAAKE: No, I didn't pay school fees yet at that time. MR DE JAGER: Your elder sons, what are their jobs? MRS MAAKE: Phillip Maake. The second born has died, andthen Sydney Maake and Jackson Maake. MR DE JAGER: What was Phillip doing in 1987? MRS MAAKE: Do you mean Phillip? He was working. MR DE JAGER: Do you know where he worked? MRS MAAKE: I don't remember the name of the factory. MRS MAAKE: Sydney is working at Manpower. MR CURRIN: I have no questions in re-examination, butI do have a question which is not evidence inasmuch as I thinkit is important to hear what the witness's view is regarding thisapplication. What her feeling is about amnesty, and I would liketo just give her an opportunity to express a view of the application,if I may. Could you please advise the members of the Committeehow you feel about the amnesty application which has been broughtregarding the assassination of your son. MRS MAAKE: I don't forgive, Sir. MR CURRIN: Is there anything else you would like to addto that? MRS MAAKE: I don't have forgiveness. What I want is theymust show me the place where they have killed my son. MR CURRIN: Do you wish to add nothing more than that? It would seem that that is all the witness wishes to say. I haveno further questioning. MRS MAAKE: Yes, I don't have anything to add. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. You are excused. This might be a convenient stage to adjourn until 9.30 tomorrowmorning. MR CURRIN:: ...on record with regard to the applications,we've been asked to place this on record on behalf of the familymembers. CHAIRMAN:: What does that mean, are you going to giveevidence? MR CURRIN:: Well on their behalf we've been asked to makecertain admissions, certain statements. CHAIRMAN:: Isn't there an appropriate time for that later,after all the evidence is led? MR CURRIN:: It could be except they only want to testifyon the way the feel about the amnesty application. With regardto the involvement for example of Andrew Makope, Mrs Makope, inANC activities, she just wanted us to place certain things onrecord rather than testify to that. If the Committee would ratherhear her make all these statements, that's fine I mean we don'thave a problem with that, we just thought we could maybe curtailproceedings a little bit by placing certain things on record. CHAIRMAN:: Is there any difficulty in that regard? MR DU PLESSIS :: Mr Chairman, we feel that if the victimcomes and testifies about how the victim feels, we don't havea problem with that. If the victim comes and testifies and contradictsthe applicants on material facts pertaining to the happeningswe feel we should have a right not to vigorously cross-examinebut just to test the evidence on that basis. If my learned friendis going to place on record certain facts in respect of the factsof the matter, that means that I will not be able to test theevidence of the victims in that regard. If he wants to contradictthe evidence of the applicants then we should be afforded, withrespect, the opportunity to ask them CHAIRMAN:: Mr Currin, if these are non-controversial matterson which you wish to place the matters on record then I am preparedto allow you to do that. MR CURRIN:: It's uncontroversial, we're not going to contest,it's not a question of contesting, it's a question of confirmingcertain aspects of the evidence. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, bear in mind that if there is going tobe any statement that you are going to make which might have tobe tested by cross-examination then it will mean you will haveto lead that evidence through your witness. MR CURRIN:: I understand that I've had experience withmaking statements before this Committee before. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, maybe you were allowed a great latitudeat the time but Mr Currin you may proceed by making your statement. MR CURRIN:: Thank you. Mrs Makope wishes us on her behalfto confirm that her husband... MR DE JAGER:: Haven't you got a copy of this statementMr Currin? MR CURRIN:: I have a copy of a statement which we tookfrom her and I'm just... MR DE JAGER:: Yes but the facts you want to put beforeus, haven't you prepared a statement putting the facts that youcould hand it in? MR CURRIN:: We could do that later, we can do that latermine is full of handwritten notes. MR CURRIN:: There are no new facts, these are facts thatyou've heard before except what we will call her to say. Hedisappeared on 15 July 1987. He had come home to buy things for their three week old baby and she never saw him againafter he left. She says she knew that he was politically activeand she also knows that he was a member of the African NationalCongress. MR CURRIN:: I'm speaking on behalf of, this is on behalfof Mabel Makope who is the wife of Andrew Makope. MR CURRIN:: She also knows that he used to cross the borderto Botswana and I will get her to confirm this in evidence thatshe had a brother in Botswana who was in exile by the name ofFreddie and he used to visit his brother in Botswana. Finally that he had been detained once for one day by the police. We will now call her as a witness to talk about her feelingswith regard to the application and deal with one or two aspectswhich are slightly controversial. Thank you. QUESTION:: You heard what I stated a few moments ago tothe Committee, I want to just ask you a couple of other questionsregarding your husband and you must just answer the questionsas I put them to you. Did you hear that? QUESTION:: Thank you. There was evidence that your husbanddrove a blue Gallant, what vehicle did he drive? ANSWER:: I don't know that blue Gallant, he was drivinga white Mitsubishi car. QUESTION:: When did you last see that? ANSWER:: I saw that car for the last time when I saw him QUESTION:: I see and the car has disappeared completely? ANSWER:: Yes he went with that car. QUESTION:: Your instructions are that he had been detainedon one occasion for one day, and I put that on record. Did hehave any other interaction with the police of which you are aware? QUESTION:: Did he share with you any information withregard to his political activities? ANSWER:: What I only know is that he used to go to hisbrother in Botswana, he used to visit his brother to Botswana. QUESTION:: Other than that he didn't talk about his activitiesto you? QUESTION:: How do you feel about this amnesty application,what is your feeling as the wife of a person who was killed inthis fashion? ANSWER:: I am very hurting because I suffered so muchbecause of the loss of my husband, he's the person who was takingcare of me and he left with me with children. If it was notof this people he could have been alive today. What should Ido with his children? QUESTION:: We understand that it's very difficulty foryou. CHAIRMAN: How many children did you have? ANSWER:: I have three children sir. ANSWER:: The first born in 18 years old and is doing Std10. The second born is 11 years old, he's doing Std 4. Theone who he left whilst he was still a young boy has two MR CURRIN:: When you say he's two years, what do you meanby that, how old is he now? Your husband disappeared on 15 July1987. ANSWER:: The last one was born in 1987 on 15, 16 June. QUESTION:: So he is now about 10 years old? ANSWER:: She has completed nine years in June. QUESTION:: Thank you, and how do you feel about the amnestyapplication, the fact that the applicants are asking this Committeeto grant them amnesty. How do you feel about that? ANSWER:: I'm not accepting that well because those peoplecould have asked forgiveness long before. For them to ask forgivenessnow I don't understand, they could have come to me and tell mewhat they have done, maybe I could have heard another alternative,but now I'm hurting after hearing what has happened. QUESTION:: They have never come to you personally? QUESTION:: When and where did you hear about their amnestyapplication for the first time? ANSWER:: I started to learn about the application on TV. QUESTION:: When did you hear for the first time that yourhusband had been killed? ANSWER:: I read about it on the City Press on 28 January1996. QUESTION:: What did you think had happened to your husbandbefore you read that in the newspaper? ANSWER:: I didn't know exactly what happened, we werejust looking for him and no knowing where but I kept on askingmyself questions as well, if he's still alive why doesn't he QUESTION:: How did you feel when you heard that he hadbeen killed by the police, by the security police? ANSWER:: I'm not able to explain. QUESTION:: I think you have explained. I have no furtherquestions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN QUESTION:: What work did your husband do? ANSWER:: He was an undertaker working for his brothersmortuary. QUESTION:: The vehicle, the motor car that you say hedrove, was that his own vehicle? QUESTION:: The house in which you lived, is that yourhouse? ANSWER:: That's our house sir. QUESTION:: Has it been paid for? ANSWER:: No it's a rental house sir. QUESTION:: Who pays for the education of your children? ANSWER:: It's Andrew's parents who are now pensioners. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Mrs Makope I'm just going to put this to youand I want your reaction, if you want to give a reaction. TheColt Gallant motor vehicle that my client has testified aboutis part of the Mitsubishi range of motor vehicles, it's the samecompany that manufactures it. I'm putting that to you as a fact,can you comment on it? ANSWER:: Our car, we had a white, a cream white car whichis (indistinct) Mitsubishi. QUESTION:: Mr Makope, you through the statement of MrCurrin you admitted that your husband was politically active andthat he was a member of the ANC, is that correct? QUESTION:: You also testified that you don't know whathe did in the political sphere, is that correct? QUESTION:: So Mrs Makope am I right in saying that whatMr Van Vuuren and Captain Hechter testified about what your husbanddid, that you can't dispute that? ANSWER:: Well what did they say he was doing? QUESTION:: They said, their evidence that they gave wasevidence that, well they testified that they had evidence thatyour husband was a trained terrorist, that he was involved inlandmine explosions, that he was involved in serious terror deeds,that he was involved in petrol bombings and other riot-relatedacts. ANSWER:: That's not true, where did he do those thingswithout my knowledge? QUESTION:: Mrs Makope I'm asking you if you know anythingabout these things, and you testified that you don't know aboutit is that correct? ANSWER:: Yes I said I didn't know. QUESTION:: Thank you, I've no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Had your husband ever left you for any periodof time before his disappearance? ANSWER:: That year he didn't leave me and the year before he used to leave many times and he used to tell me that he's goingto his brother. QUESTION:: How long did he leave for? ANSWER:: Plus/minus two to three days. QUESTION:: No longer than that? ANSWER:: Not longer than that sir. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON QUESTION:: Mrs Makope did you know of Jackson Make orHarold Sefola? ANSWER:: I don't know Jackson Make, I only know, I onlylearned about him on the newspaper. Harold Sefola I used totake him as Andrew's brother because they were always together. He was always with his brother, with Andrew at the mortuarywhere the brother is living to some business. QUESTION:: Was Mr Sefola then assisting Mr Makope at themortuary? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE QUESTION:: When your husband worked in this mortuary whatwere his hours of work? ANSWER:: He was starting at 8 o'clock then he was closingoff at 6 o'clock. ANSWER:: On Saturdays they were always busy and around4 they were through with their work and then on Sundays when theyare not working, he was opening in the morning at 8 o'clock andthen come back at about 9. QUESTION:: His brother who was in Botswana....(questionends in mid-sentence)... ANSWER:: I know that he was working with him in the mortuaryand that he was always arrested by the police, for what he wasdoing in Botswana I am not sure. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN QUESTION:: Mrs Makope I just want to understand your evidence. The brother who was in Botswana that your husband used to visit,is he the one who was running the mortuary prior to... ANSWER:: Yes that's the owner of the mortuary. QUESTION:: ...the country for Botswana? ANSWER:: I believe it's around 1978 or 79, I don't rememberwell. QUESTION:: From 78 until 87 was he staying in Botswanapermanently? ANSWER:: No he was not coming back home he was alwaysin Botswana. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE QUESTION:: Can I ask one more question? Do you knowhow old your husband was when he disappeared? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman, on behalf of Lizzie Sefola beforewe call her as a witness we would like to place on record thathe disappeared from home, from his home in Witbank on 16 July198...(side 1 of tape ends)....very little about his activitiesbecause he was secretive about what he did. According to MrsSefola he was never on any single occasion arrested or detainedby the police prior to his disappearance and assassination. I would like to call her to talk about her feelings and aboutthe process. Thank you. QUESTION:: Mrs Sefola I'm going to ask you questions,you must answer them as I put them to you. You heard the statementthat I made on your behalf, do you confirm what I said? QUESTION:: Would you advise the Committee how you feelabout the amnesty process? ANSWER:: I don't accept it because it's very much painfulto us the way they killed them. QUESTION:: When did you hear for the first time aboutthe killing of your husband? ANSWER:: I saw it on the city press on 28 January 1996and I read it, I read the city press. QUESTION:: What did you think had happened to your husband? ANSWER:: I did not know what happened it was about 8 years,it's then that I realised that he was dead because if he was stillalive he was a person who used to love his children, he was goingto visit the children so since it was too long, I realised thathe's dead. QUESTION:: ...when you heard that he had in fact beenkilled? ANSWER:: It was very much painful to me but I was interestedin knowing the truth as to what happened to him. QUESTION:: Do you feel that you now know the truth asto what happened to him? ANSWER:: No I heard it yesterday. QUESTION:: How many children do you have? ANSWER:: I've got six children. The first was born in1962. The second born in 1965. The third on in 1968. Theother one was born in 1969 and I've got a one that's born in 1977and the one was born in 1980. QUESTION:: What did your husband do before he disappeared?(Beginning of sentences very indistinct). ANSWER:: He had just bought a shop in Witbank. ANSWER:: The business failed because he disappeared, Icould not manage it. QUESTION:: Who supports you and your children now? ANSWER:: I'm maintaining myself. QUESTION:: Is there anything more you wish to say withregard to the application for amnesty and your feelings aboutthat? ANSWER:: The way they murdered them, I want them if theycould be taken to court they should come to us and tell us whathappened to them. I want to know where they are and the mannerin which they did it, they killed them very NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN QUESTION:: Your one child that is working, is he livingwith you? ANSWER:: Yes he's living with me. QUESTION:: (Inaudible, no microphone). QUESTION:: Are you able to pay their school fees and theirrequirements? ANSWER:: No it's difficult for me to do so because someof them they have already completed matric but they are sittingat home, they can't continue their schooling because I can't afford. QUESTION:: How many of them are at home? QUESTION:: They can't find work? ANSWER:: No, two of them are at school, actually threeof them are at school, one is at home and he's not working. QUESTION:: ...husband died he started a business in Witbank,he started a cafe in Witbank? QUESTION:: What was he doing before that? ANSWER:: He was working for Coca Cola and then he decidedto buy a general dealer. QUESTION:: Where was this business? QUESTION:: The house you live in, did that belong to yourhusband? ANSWER:: Yes that's my husband's house. QUESTION:: Has it been paid for? QUESTION:: What enquiries did you make when your husbanddidn't come home suddenly? ANSWER:: I went to mortuaries, I couldn't find him. I went to police station, I reported the matter, I reported toMamelodi police station but the Mamelodi police didn't respondand I went back to Witbank police station and Witbank police cameto me and asked me if I found my husband. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Sefola, Mr Currinmade a statement on your behalf that you know that your husbandwas politically active and that he was a member of the ANC. Is that right? QUESTION:: You also knew that your husband was politicallyactive but you don't know exactly what he did. Is that right? QUESTION:: Do you agree that the evidence given by theapplicants about what your husband did, that you cannot disputethat evidence because you don't know what he did? ANSWER:: No I don't agree with the evidence because Icould tell if my husband was doing terrorist things. QUESTION:: Mrs Sefola you testified that you don't knowwhat your husband did. ANSWER:: All I know is that he was an ANC member, I didn'tknow what he was doing. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Sefola can youread English? QUESTION:: Just have a look at it. ANSWER:: I know how to read but I left my spectacles athome. I can see here it's written that he was shot at.... QUESTION:: You testified that you learned about the deathof your husband from a city press newspaper, do you remember that? QUESTION:: Is that the newspaper that you read from, thatwhich I've just shown you? QUESTION:: I have caused the copies to be placed beforethe members of the Committee as EXHIBIT K. CHAIRMAN:: This will go in as Exhibit K, the photocopyof an extract from a newspaper. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman the date is not reflected on theclipping that was given to me but this is the one to which thewitness has just deposed. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Mpshe, the portion to our left didn't comeout, it seems to be also talking about this incident. MR MPSHE:: That is so Mr Chairman, don't you have it? That is so, the left portion is a continuation of the main part. CHAIRMAN:: I see, the right bottom continues onto theleft top? JUDGE WILSON:: Do you think you could photostat them separatelyand give us the two sheets so we can read the, because on my copyof the left-hand side half of the first column is left out. MR MPSHE:: I could endeavour to trace the original becauseI was also supplied with a copy similar to the one that I've giventhe members of the Committee. I can try to perhaps get in touchwith the press people to give me the original. EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Ma'am do you still have a copy of this newspaperat home? ANSWER:: Yes I still have a copy. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE QUESTION:: What was your husband's age? ANSWER:: He was born in 1938, when he left he was 40 somethingyears, I'm not quite sure. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE JAGER QUESTION:: Mrs Sefola did you know Mr Jackson Make andMr Andrew Makope? ANSWER:: I didn't know Mr Jackson, the only person I knowis Andrew. ANSWER:: Andrew was Freddie's brother, Freddie was myhusband's friend. QUESTION:: ...Mr Makope and your husband ever in a businessventure together? ANSWER:: No, Harold had a business in Witbank. Andrewused to come to Harold in Witbank for advices if he had difficultiesin his business. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN QUESTION:: Mrs Sefola you read newspapers don't you? ANSWER:: No I'm not reading newspapers all the time butsometimes when people are telling me there's an article in thenewspaper concerning my husband I do read it. QUESTION:: You further watch TV, the news and other stuffon TV? QUESTION:: In your reading of newspapers sometimes andwatching the TV you've heard much about reconciliation? QUESTION:: You know how our present Government feels aboutpeople reconciling? ANSWER:: No I don't, according to me people should forgiveeach other, not the Government. The people who are affectedwho had the pain should be the ones who are talking about forgiveness,not the Government. QUESTION:: How do you feel about this move by the Governmenttalking to people, persuading them towards reconciliation? ANSWER:: I feel very bad because this thing, it's stillthere, we are still feeling the pain and this people never cameto us to ask for forgiveness. The Government is doing this ontheir behalf, they don't even know what forgiveness is. Thispeople don't even deserve it because if the person was to be forgiven,he must understand what you feel. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES COMMITTEE Mr Chairman I don't want to be difficult but I want to raisea specific point which bothers us. We have received this newspaperclipping now. During cross-examination of the applicants, theapplicants were asked about the question if a lady friend waswith them in respect of Makope when Makope was picked up, no mention was made of this document andI wasn't provided with this document before. That is the firstpoint. The second point is that on the left of this documentthe article, the last paragraph of the article reads as follows: "Mark, his mother and uncle, Elizabeth Make and James Makeconfirmed that Make disappeared on July 17 after telling themthat he was going to Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana on a churchmission." That evidence wasn't presented or advanced by Mr Make's motherand I would have liked to have asked Mr Make's mother questionsabout this specific allegation. I want to place that on recordfirstly that this evidence wasn't given by Mrs Make and that we'rebeing prejudiced by not having this document available to askMrs Make questions about this. I want a direction from the Committee,please about the use of documents if my learned friend Mr Mpsheintends using documents during cross-examination of witnesses,I would ask the Committee to direct that we be supplied with thosedocuments before the main examination starts. CHAIRMAN:: I think that latter request is a genuine oneand a fair one Mr Mpshe. If you are in possession of documentswhich you propose using, don't place them in cross-examination,afford counsel an opportunity beforehand. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman that is what I must do, but whenI presented this document Mr Chairman it was not for cross-examination. The Chair will recall that I never asked a single question fromthis document. CHAIRMAN:: It just transpires that information is containedin this document which might have a bearing on matters but the request is that if you are going to make use of documents,let them have it before you ask questions. This question thatyou raise about the last paragraph, Mr Currin is it possible foryou to take instructions and clear that up? MR CURRIN:: Yes Mr Chairman that was the first time we'dheard that allegation and while Mr Du Plessis was busy addressingyou, my colleague Mr Van der Berg was taking instructions andhe just came back to me now to say that Mrs Make says that shenever ever said that to the city press. She never made that allegation,never said that to the reporter. She says they asked her ifshe knew what had happened to her son and she said she didn'tknow and she denies that she said that. She certainly nevermentioned that to us during the discussions we had with her. CHAIRMAN:: Do you wish to take that any further, it'sa matter between you and the press. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman except that I have notbeen afforded the opportunity of asking her questions about it,but I know we're dealing with it piecemeal, I don't really wantto have her recalled I just wanted to make this point that we'rebeing prejudiced in this way. NO FURTHER WITNESSES REGARDING THIS MATTER MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, Mr Mpshe, myself and Mr Currinare in agreement that Mr Currin, well Mr Currin gave an indicationthat he wanted to cross-examine Brigadier Cronje on the generalbackground. We gave an undertaking yesterday that we will starttoday with Brigadier Cronje on the general background and affordMr Currin a chance to cross-examine him on that before we go ahead any further and thatis how I understand the proceedings will go. CHAIRMAN:: Then what happens to the rest of Mr Cronje'sevidence? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman we will then go ahead withsome of the other incidents pertaining to Van Vuuren and Hechterbut we will get to Brigadier Cronje's evidence hopefully duringtoday, otherwise we will start with it tomorrow and we will hopefullyfinish with that during this week. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Currin is that the position? MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman this comes as a complete surpriseto me, I thought that Brigadier Cronje was standing over untilhe testifies and that he testifies once, I thought that was yourruling. In fact my understanding was that you were proceedingwith other applications, however I wasn't present when the discussionstook place in chambers so maybe Mr Mpshe can give us some guidance. I have no difficulty at all in beginning the cross-examinationof Brigadier Cronje, I would just have to go and get my file andrequire a five minute adjournment to prepare myself to commencethat cross-examination. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman we don't have a problem, actuallywhat I want to say is during this week we have acceded to everyrequest of everybody, Mr Mpshe, Mr Currin, we will fall in withevery request of them whenever they want to hear, whatever incidents,we're prepared to fall in with that so we are prepared to go onwith Geoffrey Sebia(?) under these circumstances Mr Chairman. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman just to recall what was decidedupon in chambers, it was that we do not go on with the Hammanskraal matter but the ruling that was made was to the effectthat we continue with other matters that we can deal with todayand that was the conclusion in chambers Mr Chairman, that wasthe impression that was given right through. Mr Chairman justsome few minutes before we could start then I was approached byMr Currin who said if we cross-examine Brigadier Cronje will youhave any problem, I said no I won't have any problem but I didnot see that as putting aside the decision to deal with othermatters that are standing. I want to believe Mr Chairman itis in the interests of all here present, applicants as well asvictims, that we continue with incidences as we have been doingMr Chairman and the ruling that Brigadier Cronje would be cross-examinedon the general background the ruling was given by this Committeethat that would be done when Brigadier Cronje gives his evidenceon the other incidents. CHAIRMAN:: We will proceed in terms of the arrangementsthat were arrived at in chambers this morning. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call CaptainHechter. Mr Chairman it is the matter of Geoffrey Sebia, thatis page 111. MR CURRIN:: ...represents the family in regard to thisparticular matter, we haven't yet been given a copy of the applicationand furthermore, as far as we know, the Sebia, the family is nothere. I believe that they are not present today. So maybeMr Mpshe should just ensure that they are in fact here beforeone proceeds with that application. CHAIRMAN:: They knew this matter was proceeding todaydid they not? MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman I'm not sure whether they knewthat it would proceed today. The difficulty is with all theapplicants, and there are about 40 family members who have beentold to be on hold and that they would be contacted as and whentheir matter is due to be heard, many of them are employed theycan't sit here for two weeks and wait for their matter to be heardand the arrangement is that they will be advised in advance andwe have been advising our clients in advance as to when they shouldbe here, depending upon the arrangement that was made the previous. As far as today is concerned, the arrangement was unequivocalthat the Motasa matter would be heard today so the arrangementswe made with our clients were with the Motasa's and in fact themother and child are both here at the moment and their matteris now not going to be called. I believe Sepia was not advisedthat his matter would be heard today. Maybe Mr Mpshe can informyou further on that? MR MPSHE:: Mr Currin the position, the reality now isthat it has become difficult to proceed with Motasa's case... MR MPSHE:: And the further reality is that the only othermatter we can proceed with is Sebia's case. I respect your statement that the family may not be here, but you are also notunmindful of the fact that you are their legal representative. Are you of the view that we cannot proceed even if they arenot there and although you are here, have you not consulted themfully? I know they have got the right to be here but we knowthat last week you asked for an adjournment of about three daysor so, so that you could consult with all your clients. Presumablythis included the Sebia people as well, I don't know, but givenall these difficulties that we have and this reality before us,are you saying that we cannot see our way through to proceedingwith the Sebia matter? MR CURRIN:: The Sebia instruction we got yesterday, it'sthe only matter that we're not ready to proceed on, we're readyto proceed on all the other matters where we are involved. Iwas told that the Zozo Hut matter would be called next becausethere the relevant family members are not in the country and theyknow the matter is here and they know it is proceeding, and theyhave no objection to the matter proceeding in their absence andI was told that that matter would proceed now. CHAIRMAN:: A great deal of time is taken up unfortunatelyin problems of this kind. I think greater effort should be madeto co-ordinate your activities, it is not always possible to carryout decisions that are taken two days ago, but I think at theend of each day if a decision is taken as to how the proceedingsare going to take place the next day, everybody ought to try andabide by those decisions. I do not like adjourning these hearingsat short notice every now and then, just to enable hiccups ofthis kind to be sorted out, but it does seem that if take thisshort adjournment now we might save some time in the long run and I hope that withinthat short time you will finally decide who we are proceedingwith and make a beginning immediately we commence. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman perhaps an adjournment wouldnot be necessary, we are ready to go ahead with Brigadier Cronjeon the Ribiero matter. I can call Brigadier Cronje on the Ribieromatter. I can call Captain Hechter on the Ribiero matter, wecan go ahead with that matter it's really not necessary to adjournMr Chairman. MR CURRIN:: Very well we are ready to go on with whateverincident suits all the other parties. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Currin, will your team ensure that all theirpeople who are involved in this matter make themselves available,this is a matter of grave importance, they can't always be toldwhat time on which day their case will be heard. If they areconcerned about what is happening in this tribunal they will makearrangements to be here so that when their matter is heard theyare ready and available? MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman we have very, very good communicationwith all our clients. We make arrangements before the day commencesand we ensure that the people that are required on that day arepresent. The arrangements were changed this morning, a matterwas proceeding and we were ready with our clients. The factthat those arrangements were changed were really out of our hands. We can get clients here at short notice as long as we are givensome sort of detail. Many of the people are travelling fromlong distances, many of them are unemployed, at our expense weare transporting them here and back, we are co-ordinating thoseefforts and we will co-operate absolutely with this Committee to ensure that they will be here and we havedone that to this very moment. That is the only matter wherewe are not ready to proceed is the Sebia matter. CHAIRMAN:: Very well. Mr Du Plessis will you proceed? MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call BrigadierCronje on the Ribiero matter. In Brigadier's application youwill find that on page 131. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you page to page 131 of yourapplication? Brigadier would you present to the Committee yourinvolvement in the matter of Dr Fabian Ribiero and his wife? ANSWER:: Chair, I was contacted by Commandant Charl Naudeof Special Forces, who requested me to provide him with a memorandumwith regard to Dr Ribiero and his activities. MR DE JAGER:: Was this Charl Naude notified about thishearing that...? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman a number of notifications wentout yesterday on all who were involved in all matters. Thesewere issued yesterday and an attempt was made to serve them yesterday. JUDGE WILSON:: Were they served? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I cannot say whether they wereserved or not, but what I can vouch on is that they were doneand they were signed yesterday, the notifications, and they wentout with investigators to go and serve. I have not receivedreturns of service this morning. CHAIRMAN:: Perhaps during the adjournment you will sortthat out. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) ANSWER:: I asked Charl Naude for what purposes he neededthe memorandum and he answered that Special Forces had targetedRibiero or had identified him as a possible target. I told himthat if they had identified him as a target, they surely had tohave information of their own and why did they need a memorandumfrom me? He replied that they only wanted to verify the information to ascertain whether we had thesame information as what they had so that he could hand in thereport or present a report to General Joubert, his CommandingOfficer. The moment he mentioned the word "target"I realised that this was a terrorist(?) operation. I indicatedthat I would make available the applicable file but that theywould have to draft the memorandum themselves. I must mentionthat there was no mention of Mrs Ribiero. I then instructedCaptain Hechter to keep an eye on a member of Charl Naude's staffwho drafted the memorandum personally. Hechter informed meat a later stage that the Special Services requested him particularyCharl Naude, or Charl Naude personally and one of his staff persons,A Robin, to assist them in their planning with regard to the eliminationof Dr Ribiero. Hechter kept me up to date with regard to theirplans. I was therefore aware of the operation since it was a, or sinceI suspected that it was a terrorist operation I did not interferewith the preparations any further. Subsequent to the event,after the act had been committed, I heard from Captain Hechterthat two black Angolan men who had been flown in by Special Forcesfrom somewhere in the then South West Africa, that these two Angolanmen had shot Dr Ribiero and his wife. Subsequently I also hadbeen informed or I heard that Brigadier Basie Smit of the detectivebranch and that he had determined that Noel Robie's(?) vehicle,which I must mention was registered in Noel Robie's name althoughit was a SADF vehicle, that Noel Robie had picked up the blackAngolan men from somewhere after they had shot the Ribiero's andthat he removed them from the scene of the crime. Basie SmitI believe had determined from Leyland, who manufactures the Landrover, thatthis particular vehicle was in fact sold to the SADF. After Ihad heard this, General Joubert of Special Forces phoned me andrequested me that Captain Hechter and myself would attend a meetingat their headquarters. At this meeting the following personswere present, General Joubert, Colonel Joe Verster, CommandantCharl Naude, Lt Col Charl Naude, and an additional person whomI am unable to identify. General Joubert informed me that BasieSmit had determined that the Landrover did belong to the SADFand that Noel Robie was in fact in command of the vehicle andhad driven the vehicle. He requested me to, not to assist BasisSmit's investigation and in fact to ruin it one way or anotherand I told him that I would do whatever I could in this regard. The following evening I received a message at home from BrigadierSchoon that the Commissioner General, Johan Coetzee, would bevisiting me the next morning or that he wanted to see me the nextmorning. Early the next morning before I was able to go to headoffice, Captain Hechter phoned me and informed me that GeneralJoubert had visited General Coetzee the previous evening and thatthe matter was discussed at that meeting. Subsequently I wentto Brigadier Schoon who took me along to General Coetzee's office. General Coetzee asked me whether I knew anything about the Ribieromatter, I told him that I did and I also told him that this wasan operation of Special Forces. He then informed me that GeneralJoubert and General Gleeson the previous evening had visited himat home with regard to the Ribiero, or to the Ribiero's death. He then asked me why I was co-operating with the SADF and Itold him that Brigadier Schoon had given me instructions to co-operate withSpecial Forces and that Schoon had in fact claimed that GeneralCoetzee had given him this instruction and Brigadier Schoon didnot deny that he had done so. General Coetzee then took theinvestigation away from Basie Smit and gave it to Brigadier VanWyk, he tasked Brigadier Van Wyk with the investigation. Asfar as I can remember there was a later provisional investigationin which Noel Robie did appear. Noel Robie was then, it wasthen said that he was not guilty in any way, or blameworthy inany way. QUESTION:: Are you personally aware from whom, where andhow a decision was made to eliminate the Ribiero's? ANSWER:: I am not aware of this but I can say that CharlNaude informed me that he had to do the preparations for GeneralJoubert. I would be of the mind that the Ribiero's were on theterrorist(?) priority list. QUESTION:: General you would not know exactly who madethe decision and who exactly gave the instructions? QUESTION:: Brigadier, on page 132 in the second paragraphyou say that General Joubert had asked you whether you could notin one way or another destabilise the investigation of BrigadierBasie Smit. Did you do this or were your efforts in this regardto remove the investigation from Basie Smit to Brigadier Van Wyk,or do you not know? ANSWER:: I could not do anything to counter the investigationof Brigadier Basie Smit, it was simply impossible. QUESTION:: Brigadier do you know in what activities theRiviero's were involved exactly? ANSWER:: Dr Ribiero was a very active activist for theANC, he recruited MK members for training abroad and he also providedmedical assistance to terrorists and activists. QUESTION:: Would you know where Dr and Mrs Ribiero died?Do you have any knowledge of the death of the Ribiero's? ANSWER:: Yes I do have knowledge of this. QUESTION:: With regard to the political intentions ofthe deed, could we go to page 135 at the top and there we havethe general justification with regard to which you've alreadybrought testimony with regard to eliminations in general. Thenon page 140 could you present to the Committee as of the secondparagraph "The context within which this occurred was against thebackground of daily unrest, violence and intimidation. It wasthe purpose of the ANC to make the country ungovernable as partof the political resistance against the State." "I was only in a very limited way involved in this matterand had no particular purpose with my activities. It was inthe context and against the background of the struggle of theState against the ANC and liberation movements." "I gave, I had no direct instructions with regard to thisoperation. The eliminations of the Ribiero's must be judgedagainst the background of the political struggle between the Governmentof the day and the freedom movements, liberation movements, andthat it was necessary to eliminate those activists responsiblefor violence, intimidation, unrest and destabilisation." Brigadier, the last question, will Captain Hechter be able togive us greater detail with regard to this operation than yourself? ANSWER:: He knew everything with regard to the planningof this matter. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: We'll take a short adjournment at this stage. COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION JUDGE NGOEPE:: Mr Cronje you will hold on for a whilethere's a point which we would like to raise and try to sort outnow if possible. Gentlemen and ladies, you will recall thatbefore we adjourned for tea, a point was raised with regard tothe notification of some people and we indicated that we willhave a look at that point during tea time. It seems to us, subjectto what the legal representatives taking part in the proceedingswill say, it seems to us that on the face of it no proper noticehas been given to the people who should have been notified onthe fact that they might be implicated in this matter. The witnesshas mentioned a few names which also appeared in the applicationand just to give an example Mr Naude, General Coetzee and GeneralGleeson and so on and so forth. As I have said it would appearon the face of it that proper notice in terms of the Act has notbeen given to these people. Mr Mpshe would you like to starton that one before we hear from your colleagues? This is solelyin connection with the Ribiero issue. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman it isso, the only person whom I had identified for notification purposeswas Noel Robie of the Spes-magte that is the only person againstwhom I have issued a notice which was intended to be served yesterday. As I have indicated I havenot yet received any return of service as to whether he has receivedit but the notice has gone out. The other members mentionedon page 132 of the application, these I did not issue any notification. MS KHAMPEPE:: Why did you not do that Mr Mpshe where fromthe fact of the application they are implicated persons and interms of Section 19(4) they ought to have been issued also withsuch notifications? MR MPSHE:: It may have been an oversight on my part butthe reason why I chose Noel Robie alone it is because in the applicationit is him who has been mentioned as being the person who was organisingthis and the person who was involved in the execution of thisoperation. As regards the people mentioned on page 132, theonly involvement that came to my mind as far as they are concernedis when the came, at a later stage after the operation was carriedout, when they were conducting a meeting with the members, includingthe applicants. So I deemed it then, it may have been an oversight,that the important person here is Noel Robie of the Spes-magtebecause this operation was done by the Spes-magte and not by thesecurity task, that is the reason I chose Noel Robie alone. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Whatever the reason, the reality is thatsome of these people have not been notified. It takes us tothe next issue, is this a case where we can proceed hearing thetype of evidence, in fact can we proceed with this applicationdespite the fact that these various generals and other peoplehave not been notified? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee, ifcontinuation is to be done in this matter, if they hearing has to continue what I can say is that because of the disclosurethat has been made to me by the Committee now, I can cause thenotices to be issued today to the various people mentioned herein. If the Committee feels that they are only going to be informedtoday it will not be apposite to hear the matter today, I willstand by the Committee's decision. JUDGE NGCOBE:: The issue of the length of the notice priorto the hearing or continuance of the hearing maybe we'll leavethat until later. Mr Du Plessis are we in a position to proceedwith this application given the fact that the people like I'vealready mentioned, General Coetzee, Joe Verster, General Gleeson,Charl Naude, these people it is now a fact they have not beennotified? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes. Mr Chairman I want to place ourposition on record in this regard. First, in answer to my learnedfriend Mr Mpshe's argument that he only gave notice to let peopleknow who are implicated in the actual commission of the deed orthis specific deed itself, that that argument does not pertainto the Metasi matter because in the Metasi matter it was decidedthis morning that that matter cannot go on because other peopleare implicated should have notice and should be witnesses. Itseems to me there is not consistency in the application of whoshould be called as witnesses, who should be notified as partieswho have an interest in the matter. We, and I want to placethis on record, before the hearings were scheduled to start on21 October, before that we gave an indication that we are workinghard to finalise the applications, we were requested to hand inthe applications as soon as possible so as to enable the Commissionto notify all relevant persons. We did so. We handed in the applications the Monday before the21st, that was a week before. We were given an indication bythe Commission, as I understood it and my attorney as well, thatthere was enough time that they would be able to reach personsand those persons they won't reach could be reached during thefirst week of the hearings and one could then proceed with thosematters that people were notified. We are now two and a halfweeks away from the point where we handed in the applications. As far as I understand, the Commission has an investigativeunit whose task it is to notify people implicated in the hearingsand who have an interest in applications. We, as well as thepublic and I want to include yourselves as well, expect from thepeople who are responsible for this to do that. I am not pointinga finger to my learned friend because that's not his job, he'sthe chief presenter of evidence. What we say is if applicationshave to be postponed every time because these requirements havenot been met in respect of which we have no obligation, in respectof which we cannot do anything about, we are prejudiced. Weare prepared, there are various issues involved here, there arequestions of legal costs involved here which everybody knows isa difficult aspect and I just want to place on record that ifmatters have to be postponed because people have not been notified,as they should have done, the applicants are prejudiced by that. What I want to say, however, is that we are fully prepared andI reiterate what I said this morning. We are fully prepared toaccommodate everybody concerned in these hearings. We are preparedto go ahead with any application that we possibly can where peoplehave been notified and we feel that because the Act makes provision that people must benotified, that must be done before an application is heard. I am not conceding in saying that, that that is a requirementthat has to be satisfied before amnesty can be granted, I willhave another argument on that when I address the Committee onthe requirements for amnesty. As I read the Act, compliancewith this specific part of the Act is not an obligation that restson the applicants and because it doesn't rest on the applicantsthat is not a requirement the applicants have to satisfy for amnesty. What we don't want is we don't want procedural difficultieswhich can cause difficulties later. Our view is we will be prejudiced but we also say if people haven'tbeen notified there could be problems with the hearing continuingon that specific incident and we are quite prepared to go on withany other incident we can under the circumstances to utilise thetime. I want to make the point that Brigadier Cronje is therenow, there was an indication by Mr Currin that he wanted to cross-examineBrigadier Cronje...(end of side 1)... JUDGE NGCOBE:: I think Mr Mpshe you wanted to reply tothe question? MR MPSHE:: I was just inviting you in fact Mr Du Plessisto tell us on the merits whether you argue that we could validlyproceed with the application given the fact that the notices havenot been given. You seem to consider that we cannot do that? MR MPSHE:: You seem to have gone to quite some lengthin expressing your dissatisfactions, but perhaps you should alsobear in mind the fact that you submitted voluminous applications just a week before and you should also concede that.... MR DU PLESSIS:: I concede that. MR MPSHE:: The magnitude of the application. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes. Mr Chairman I just want to makethe point however absolutely clear that the concession that wemake that the hearings cannot go on on this basis that peopleare not notified is based upon the fact that we perceive thatthere might be problems later with somebody who might feel thathe might be prejudiced because he wasn't given notice. WhatI don't and what I'm not doing is I'm not conceding that thisis something that the applicants have to comply with as a requirementfor amnesty. I just want to make that clear. MR MPSHE:: Nobody has said that Mr Du Plessis. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee I'llbe very brief. I think it would be risky to proceed withoutthat compliance, that is our position. Obviously on behalf ofvictims, application going on and then not going on, hot and coldis really very, very difficult for the victims but our feelingis that it would be risky to proceed without giving proper notice. Just to make the final point, we are ready to cross-examineon the general representation that was made regarding politicalmotive and political objective, which doesn't really involve thenames of the people that were mentioned during the evidence inchief. I will leave it in the hands of the Committee to decidewhether or not one should even take that chance. Thank you. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Mr Mpshe I'm not so sure whether you needto reply you seem to be feeling strongly about saying MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman, if the Chair allows me it mightnot be apposite to do it now because some response has been doneto what my learned friend Mr Du Plessis has said. I wanted torespond to what is said that even if he pretends not to be layingthe blame at my doorstep, he has actually done that by sayingthat the people were not timeously informed. Mr Chairman, membersof the Committee it was not only a matter or receiving the applicationin the original hearing, this is a voluminous application, itinvolved my reading everything which they have submitted - withinfour days - and deciding who is to be notified within four daysand issuing out instructions to the investigating officer withinfour days and do all sorts of other things. I don't want thisto be taken as if I am inefficient, but I want this to be takenthat if I am inefficient this was, they also contributed to itbecause this volume was given to me four days before the hearing. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Mpshe we don't blame you but we thinkthe blame should rest, this application should never have beenput down for hearing during this, with a week's notice. MR MPSHE:: I cannot respond to that. CHAIRMAN:: I may mention that my brother George Ngcobehas been talking on behalf of the Committee and expressing theCommittee's views. In the last few minutes of the evidence ofBrigadier Cronje, certain names were mentioned, and this is nowevidence, what appears on the papers is not evidence. In theevidence it appears that those who were ultimately responsiblefor the identifying of the targets and determining that actionshould be taken against the Ribiero family, people whose namesare mentioned in that regard, and bearing in mind that this particular incident - that is the deathof Dr Ribiero and his wife has become news throughout the countryand has been news for a long time. We feel it is a matter ofsuch great importance that people whose names are mentioned ashaving identified the targets, who initiated steps to be takenand then of course the persons who implemented the action, whohas been given notice, we feel that the matter is of such magnitudethat we might be doing gross injustice to a number of people whoare very heavily implicated if the evidence of this witness isto be accepted, and the consequences may be serious for all, thisCommittee does not want to face urgent applications or interdictstomorrow morning as a result of individuals hearing on the radiothis evening or on TV that their names were mentioned, they weren'tgiven notice and they want to stop these proceedings. One wantsto try and avoid that kind of thing happening now in this applicationand in any other application which we are going to consider. How to salvage the situation involves two things. We may beable to do things immediately or we may be able to allow Mr Currinto proceed with the questioning of Brigadier Cronje, which wouldbe a good thing that we should dispose of if we can. Mr Mpshe,whatever other matter you propose dealing with after that, isa matter in which you will have to satisfy before you and Mr DuPlessis begin, that people's names that may be mentioned are peoplewho have been given notice, otherwise you're going to find thatevery hour we're going to ask for an adjournment and an explanationas to whether notices have been given or not. I think sufficienthas been said in that regard and it is the view that we shouldnow proceed. I am sorry to interrupt your evidence at this stage, it does seem that it can't be avoided. We willnot then proceed with the evidence which you gave on the generalbackground to enable Mr Currin and any other counsel who is involvedin the matter to cross-examine you on that aspect of your evidence. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee. BrigadierCronje, I'm going to question you on the document which is entitled"The development of the struggle of the South African Governmentand the ANC, SACP and PAC", page 27-29. I am going to followthe following themes in this order; political motive, that's thefirst theme; the second one is the question of war and counter-warwhich was engaged upon by the security forces, security policespecifically; three the question of instructions and accountability; CHAIRMAN:: Could you repeat three please? MR CURRIN:: Instructions and accountability; (5) the roleof the security legislation, the Internal Security Act, the EmergencyRegulations; (5) informants; and (6) the question of propaganda. QUESTION:: Brigadier, if we understand your politicalmotive, and I want you to confirm if I am correct or correct meif I am wrong, if we understand your political motive, in broadterms you seem to be saying that it was to maintain the Stateby keeping the National Party in power, in order to keep apartheidin place and to sustain the fight against the liberation movements. Is that an accurate summary of your political motive? ANSWER:: The motive was, as Mr Currin is saying, to maintainthe National Party, to support the apartheid government and maintain it and to combat communism. QUESTION:: If the emphasis is on the National Party, mustwe assume that the actions, the deeds that you committed werebeing done on behalf of the National Party? ANSWER:: It was done to combat communism and to maintainapartheid, as such then to maintain the National Party in government. QUESTION:: Were you doing it on behalf of the NationalParty? ANSWER:: On behalf of the government of the day. QUESTION:: It has been said by a previous witness thatthe security police, and in particular if I may call it the "hitsquad" element of the security police, "was die ystervuisvan die Nasionale Party", that they were the iron fist ofthe National Party. ANSWER:: That is the case Your Honour, without the securitypolice the National Party would not have stayed in governmentone week. QUESTION:: Would it be correct to say that the securitypolice, and in particular that aspect that was involved in theseunlawful assassinations, was the hit squad of the National Party? ANSWER:: It can be understood in that way Chair. QUESTION:: Brigadier, would any government or any partyunder the previous constitution have stayed in government, I'mreferring to any party whether it was the Conservative Party orwhatever party, the Democratic Party, but under the old constitutionif any party maintained the.... CHAIRMAN:: Is it not the army that supports and maintainsa party in power if the time arises to defend the government, is it necessarily the police force that maintainsa political party in power? ANSWER:: The security police Mr Chair was primarily therefor political purposes and the political purposes of the thenNational Party government. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier Cronje, could you tell this Committee,as far as you know, who in the National Party was aware of thefact that there was an "ystervuis" or a hit squad actingon its behalf? ANSWER:: There is no doubt in my mind that the State SecurityCouncil was aware of the existence of these. QUESTION:: For the record, could you tell us who was onthe State Security Council at the time, if you don't know allthe names you can tell us their capacities? ANSWER:: The President, the Minister of Police were automatically(?)members of this Council, I do not know the remainder. QUESTION:: Who else was on the State Security Councildo you know? QUESTION:: Do you know how large the State Security Councilwas? ANSWER:: No I do not know this either. JUDGE WILSON:: Can I interpose here? Do you know, notof people but of organisations that were on the Council, werethe police force represented there, was the army represented there,do you know that? ANSWER:: Yes Chair, the police and the South African DefenceForce were present there and I believe that National Intelligencewould also have been represented. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: During your evidence you told us about threeseparate events or incidents which seemed to have been the turningpoint where the security police actually began to take pro-activesteps by engaging in a war situation and then officially, in thecontext of the security police, breaching the laws of the land. I just want to go through those three with you and find outwhat their order was, which one came first, second or third becauseI'm not clear. The first one you mentioned in your evidence isBrigadier Victor in 1986 where he said that you should take whateversteps are necessary. You also mentioned that in 1986 BrigadierSchoon said that you should work closely with Spes-magte and youinterpreted that as meaning that you should engage in the war. Then thirdly you mentioned "trevits", and trevits was something which, as far asI can establish, was actually initiated in 1985. Did trevitscome before the first two? ANSWER:: Chair, trevits was founded in 1986 and the othertwo instructions I only received from Brigadier Victor and afterthat from Brigadier Schoon. Additionally there was another incidentwhen General Van der Merwe gave me the instruction to be involvedin the "zero hand grenade event" and when he told methat this instruction came from General Coetzee, previous MinisterLe Grange and P W Botha. QUESTION:: What was the date, the year of that incident? ANSWER:: This incident took place in roughly June 1985. QUESTION:: Would you please tell us in more detail preciselywhat constituted trevits and how it worked and I'll just go throughmy summary and I'd like you to add to that. You said that itwas a national structure, it's objective was to gather information regarding targets around theentire country. In different regions, as I understand you,meetings took place once a month where information was collatedfrom all sectors and that included military intelligence, nationalintelligence, the security branch and spes-magte, special forces. The information which was gathered was compared at these meetingsand a list, which was a priority list, was prepared on whichtargets were identified. Is that correct? ANSWER:: Apart from the fact that when trevits was foundedin 1985 it was primarily to identify foreign targets, targetsoutside the country, but I believe after the state of emergencythese instructions also included internal targets. QUESTION:: ...establishment, was there not a decisionthat trevits would also operate internally? ANSWER:: I did not have permanent sitting on trevits butsince the Ribiero's instruction I believe also was agreed to bytrevits during 1986 and it took place during 1986. QUESTION:: You say you didn't have a permanent seat ontrevits, my apologies I see there is a question from Adv De Jager. MR DE JAGER:: We're talking about trevits could you nottell us more concretely about trevits, this is some or other bodyand we're blaming this body but who were the persons who had sittingon this body, do you know any particular names of peoples whowere sitting on trevits and who were involved in trevits? ANSWER:: The co-ordinator of information was Colonel TomLouw. The head of trevits at a certain stage was General, thenBrigadier Buchner and later I believe General Beukes. The other members who had sitting... CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier Victor followed General Bob Beukes,is that correct, in your written evidence? QUESTION:: You said after General Bob Beukes was Victor? It's page 22 Mr Chairman. ANSWER:: I understood "Victor". That is thecase. QUESTION:: ...more about who was on trevit, met monthly,who went to those meetings? ANSWER:: There were representatives of military intelligence,national intelligence, special forces, I cannot say whether thiswas the same representative at every event, I cannot rememberwho these representatives were. QUESTION:: Who instructed the establishment of trevits? ANSWER:: I believe that it was the State Security Councilbecause they knew about trevits. QUESTION:: You assume it was the State Security Counciland in your evidence you did say that they knew about the existenceof trevits. How do you know that they knew of the existenceof trevits? ANSWER:: It was a secret, a very highly secret organisationwithin the security establishment and I cannot imagine that suchan organisation with such very wide powers could have been foundedwithout the knowledge of the State Security Council. QUESTION:: At the trevits meetings, I understood thatreports were compiled at least in the form of "hit lists"if I may call them hit lists, which they seem to have been. Is that correct? ANSWER:: Yes, targets were identified and placed on a priority list with the purpose of eliminating these persons. QUESTION:: Did every person who was present at those meetingsknow about a particular target that has been identified and adecision now to begin to take steps to eliminate that person? QUESTION:: When you said you didn't have a permanent seaton trevits, what does that mean, what are the implications ofthat, did you sort of come and out and how many other people werein and out of trevits without having permanent seats? ANSWER:: I can mention that every region, there was theEastern Transvaal, Western Transvaal, Northern Transvaal and farNorthern Transvaal had meetings with regard to each region, withregard to every region. QUESTION:: ...in those regions, is that correct? QUESTION:: In each one of those regions there were onthat committee representatives of military intelligence, nationalintelligence, security branch, spes-magte is that what you'resaying? QUESTION:: Do you know the names of the people that saton those regional committees representing those particular organisationsand if you don't have their names, do you have their capacities. In other words was it the officer in command of security forcesat that particular time who would have sat? ANSWER:: It would not necessarily have been the commandingofficer, it could have been someone who had delegated powers fromthe commanding officer. QUESTION:: Are you able, in the context of full disclosure,to give this Committee more details about the names of peoplewho participated at a trevits level in the regions that you'vementioned? ANSWER:: I can attempt. In the Western Transvaal itwould have been possibly Captain Kraus or Brigadier Loots. Inthe Eastern Transvaal it could have been Captain Dietlis(?). In the far North I don't know, I can't think who it might havebeen. I don't know about the Northern Cape. Then in my ownregion it would have been a number of different persons, it couldhave been Captain Van Jaarsveld or Captain Loots, it could havebeen either of them. ANSWER:: That would have been the case. Later CaptainVenter also had sitting on this body. QUESTION:: ...you don't have any other names? QUESTION:: During the course of these proceedings to considerand think carefully about it and if you do remember other nameswe would ask you to submit those names, come back and give evidenceand submit those names. Would you be willing to do that? ANSWER:: I would do this happily, gladly. QUESTION:: We've got Western Transvaal, Northern Transvaal,far North, Northern Cape, Eastern Transvaal. ANSWER:: As I said initially it was founded in particularareas, next to the homeland areas or rather then border, SouthAfrican borders, it would have been the areas adjacent to foreigncountries. QUESTION:: ...Johannesburg, Southern Transvaal didn'thave a representative, it wasn't part of trevits? QUESTION:: If we understand you correctly, you are sayingthat at some stage trevits began to identify targets within SouthAfrica, is that a fact that you are stating categorically? QUESTION:: Once that happened did trevits not then establishother regional committees? ANSWER:: I would believe that what they would have donethen is that there would have been trevits regions where therewere more problems than elsewhere. QUESTION:: Can I assume that there was a trevits committeethen established for the Witwatersrand or particularly for theJohannesburg, greater Johannesburg region? ANSWER:: That is possible, although I do not have personalknowledge of that. QUESTION:: The trevits committee Northern Transvaal, wasthat in Pretoria? ANSWER:: It would have been at the head office. QUESTION:: Did they operate in the Johannesburg regionas well? QUESTION:: Brigadier, by the nature of the trevits operation,a secret organisation, where it seems that those who participatedappointed themselves to be accusers, prosecutors, judges and executioners,what steps were taken to ensure that the....(tape ends)... ANSWER:: The information made available to trevits, asI have already mentioned, was put together by General Louw andit would have been contained in the head office files so thatthey were able to control the information at the head QUESTION:: Were you satisfied that all the necessary measureswere in place to ensure that the information that a person onthe list was, according to your criteria, supposed to be on thatlist? ANSWER:: All of this information would have been containedin the files not only information gained through informants, butalso by means of personal investigations as well as the tappingof telephone wires as well as by gaining access to the mail ofthe persons involved. The information I would believe was infact entirely believable and trustworthy. QUESTION:: ...at a trevits level in the Northern Transvaal? How many priority targets were identified for assassination? ANSWER:: One as far as I know and I would imagine thatwould have been Dr Ribiero. QUESTION:: One that you're referring to. ANSWER:: That would have been Piet Mtuli. QUESTION:: For how long were you participating on trevits? ANSWER:: Myself and my staff would have been involvedin it, the persons whom I delegated to do that, would only havebeen involved if we had a target whom we wanted to identify. QUESTION:: How many years you participated? ANSWER:: That would have been from 1985 or more probably1986 until the middle of 1987 at which stage I retired. QUESTION:: In a year there was only one target? QUESTION:: ...the need to have a secret organisation liketrevits if in a year you can only find one target? CHAIRMAN:: Is that really important? MR CURRIN:: It may be important if you don't.... CHAIRMAN:: Is it a question just for the sake of beinga question or is there a purpose to the question? MR CURRIN:: I believe there is a purpose in the question. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: I've asked the question, did you.... ANSWER:: Trevits did not only consist of the NorthernTransvaal but also of other regions. QUESTION:: ...targets that were identified in other regions? MR CURRIN:: Was that information not shared amongst thevarious regions? ANSWER:: No Chair, once it was discussed on the meetingif I wasn't at the meeting or my representatives weren't at themeeting then I wouldn't have known of it. QUESTION:: What was happening in other regions there wassort of regional autonomy is that what you're saying? ANSWER:: Each region had its own priorities. QUESTION:: ...co-ordinating committee to whom these variousregional committees reported? ANSWER:: I would believe that the minutes of trevits wasdiscussed at the State Security Council level. QUESTION:: So you're saying that each region reporteddirectly to the State Security Council? ANSWER:: No that is not what I'm saying, trevits itselfwould have done that. QUESTION:: I'm not clear I'm sorry on what you are saying,there are regional structures around the country, when they gotinformation about a target and about a planned assassination andthey were to report, who did they report to? ANSWER:: They made their reports at the trevits meetings. QUESTION:: ...national meetings that would then take place? ANSWER:: The meetings, as I said, happened on a regionallevel, these meetings would have made reports to trevits at headoffice. QUESTION:: Trevits "hoofkantoor" and each regionreported to trevits "hoofkantoor" is that correct? ANSWER:: Yes when a region wanted to make such a presentation. QUESTION:: People that you mentioned earlier, ColonelLouw, Hoof-generaal Buchner, General Bob Beukes and BrigadierVictor, were those the people at head office? QUESTION:: They in turn, as far as you know, reportedto the State Security Council? QUESTION:: So they would have been aware of any assassinationplanned in any part of the country where trevits operated? QUESTION:: I want to, the instruction in 1986 from BrigadierSchoon, he was in charge of the terrorist section at securityhead quarters, is that correct? QUESTION:: He advised you that the security police mustin future work closely with Special Forces? QUESTION:: If I understand your evidence in chief correctly,you say that you regarded that as an order to get involved inwaging war? ANSWER:: Yes Chair, as I have said if he gave me an instruction to work with Military Intelligence I would have interpretedit differently, but Spes Forces were a specialised combat unitand the only deduction I could make from the instruction was thatwe were supposed to co-operate with Special Forces in the war. QUESTION:: Koevoet fell under Spes-magte correct? ANSWER:: No, Koevoet was a police unit. QUESTION:: Then came the instruction in 1986 from BrigadierVictor where he gave you this general, broad instruction to takewhatever steps are necessary to bring the situation in Pretoriaunder control, because Pretoria was burning? ANSWER:: That was prior to the instruction by BrigadierSchoon. QUESTION:: You took action against people, we've heardabout that and the action that you took about people was basedon information that was given to you as to what those potentialvictims had done? ANSWER:: That is correct Chair. QUESTION:: ...a report on hearsay? ANSWER:: This information, as I've already said, was gainedfrom different informants, we would never have acted only on theinformation of a single informant. In addition we would haveattempted to confirm the information by means of personal observation,by means of telephone tapping, by means of gaining access to theperson's mail. We would not have acted on the information ofa single informant. QUESTION:: Are you saying that in regard to all theseapplications which you support of which you have knowledge, includingthose where you are not personally involved, great pains wouldhave been taken to ensure that the information was correct? ANSWER:: I believe that this was the case in every instanceChair. QUESTION:: You are absolutely certain that no steps weretaken against anyone in the form of assassination because of apersonal grudge or just a whim or fancy at the time? ANSWER:: That would have been out of the question, I wouldnot believe that anyone would have done this for their own personalgain Chair. QUESTION:: Could the Committee bear with me for a momentplease? You've said that you were involved, and that the securitypolice who were part of the police force, were involved in militaryoperations? ANSWER:: That is correct Chair. QUESTION:: I want to put it to you that our clients werenot aware of the fact that the police were waging war againstthem, they were not aware that the police were waging war againstthose that were killed or even against themselves. ANSWER:: Could you repeat the question? QUESTION:: I want to put it to you that the person inthe street, the people of South Africa and more particularly thevictims, the survivors, were not aware of the fact that the policewere waging a war against them. ANSWER:: I couldn't comment on that, I don't know whatpeople thought. QUESTION:: Did the police at any stage officially declarewar against the people, citizens of South Africa? ANSWER:: I cannot imagine that there was any sort of officialstatement that we were involved in a struggle against the peopleor that the police were involved in the struggle, but any personwho was involved or knowledgeable, such as people in the black neighbourhoods, black townships, wouldhave known that we were operating there and that this was a stateof war. QUESTION:: ...the people in the townships knew that thepolice were at war with them? ANSWER:: I would say so Chair. QUESTION:: Our clients, the survivors of the victims willsay that ... ANSWER:: Mr Currin is that quite the correct statement,that the police were at war with all the inhabitants of a particulararea or were they at war with particular inhabitants? QUESTION:: ...valid point, of course the question is howdoes one identify who is the enemy and who is not the enemy ifyou are a citizen of a country? ANSWER:: Would it be the case, you've seen the presentationof the ANC that there was, that they identified the security forcesand the police officially as their enemy, so if the one side seessomeone as an enemy, how would the other side see that person? QUESTION:: That is an issue for argument which one willdeal with later, the point I want to make is that the police neverofficially declared that they were at war with anyone? CHAIRMAN:: Has this not been described as "an undeclaredwar"? MR CURRIN:: I'm not sure that those words were ever used,but it may well be that that's what the witness will say. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Mr Currin I thought, the impression I gotfrom all this material was that at some stage the police regardedthemselves as being at war not necessarily with the people inthe street, but being at war with what they described as, rightly or wrongly, terrorists, ANC members, SACP. I think you are putting it too broadly. MR CURRIN:: I hear what you are saying, the difficultyis the arbitrary choosing of who is the enemy. CHAIRMAN:: Well well-known political organisations, well-knownliberation movements, trade unions and such organisations. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I may mention here that inthe general background of Brigadier Cronje's application he setsit out very clearly on page 12 and further on. MR CURRIN:: I will move on to the next question if thatsuits the Committee. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, before we go back to the war situationthat we were talking about I would just like to take you backto trevits and ask you one or two more questions regarding thatstructure which still requires some clarification in my mind. In your evidence you said that the commanding officer of trevitsinitially was Mr Louw and then there was Hoof-generaal Buchnerand subsequently there were other people. Besides them in thatcentral structure to which all the regional structures were accountable,who else served on that central structure? ANSWER:: Chair, Colonel Louw was not in charge of trevits,he co-ordinated the information. The head of trevits would havebeen the Brigadiers and Generals. QUESTION:: Beukes and later Victor? QUESTION:: Who else besides them were on that centralstructure? QUESTION:: Were there any other people on that centralstructure? ANSWER:: Not as far as I know. QUESTION:: So it was a very small structure? ANSWER:: This is because it was a secret organisation. QUESTION:: Who did they represent when for example ColonelLouw was there and Hoof-generaal Buchner, who were they representingwhen they were on that structure? ANSWER:: Certainly the Commissioner of Police. QUESTION:: The Commissioner, is that a guess or are youstating that as a fact? JUDGE WILSON:: Can I interrupt again at this stage? Where was the office? ANSWER:: It was at the security branch head office. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: I want to rephrase a question that I put toyou earlier which was a little bit ambiguous and which resultedin certain comments from the Committee. I think it's commoncause that the liberation movements were waging an armed struggleagainst the security forces. If I understand your evidence correctly,the security forces in turn were waging an undeclared counter-waragainst the members of the liberation movement, political activistsand trouble-makers, to quote your evidence in chief. Is thatcorrect? QUESTION:: I want to put it to you that the family membersof victims, as well as victims who survived, were not aware ofthe fact that you were waging a war against them because it wasa (inaudible) exercise, wasn't it? QUESTION:: But there were activists, political activistsand so-called "trouble-makers", I put it to you thatthey were not aware of the fact that there was an undeclared waragainst them where those who waged that war saw themselves notaccountable to any laws of the land. ANSWER:: Chair if they did not know this then they wouldhave been extremely uninformed, certainly our actions in the blacktownships was of such a nature that they must have realised thatthe police were waging war against the activists or at least withthe ANC and the other liberation movements. QUESTION:: They were under the impression that the governmentof the day had passed draconian laws, the Internal Security Act,Emergency Regulations, and that it was through those instrumentsof law which the security forces were attempting to challengeoff the struggle. ANSWER:: I can only say that under all circumstances we,along with the military or acted along with the military, andhow this decision was made I would not know. QUESTION:: ...that political activists in the townshipsknew that they could at any stage be unlawfully killed pro-activelyby the security forces? QUESTION:: The implication of your answer. ANSWER:: No, the implication of my answer is that we hadwaged war along with the military and that I do not see how anyonecould have come to the conclusion that we were not doing so. QUESTION:: I'm not really understanding the answer itseems rather ambiguous to me. Just let's think of a practical example, there's an activist out there, he's a political activist,he's involved in the activities that you have referred to, whetherit's school boycotts, sabotage, whether it's bombings whatever,that is what he is involved in as an activist. Are you sayingthat he knew that his activities would be pre-empted and thathe would be killed and that he did not expect rather that he wouldbe detained in terms of the Emergency Regulations or that he wouldbe charged with sabotage and sent to jail? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman with respect, I don't wantto object unnecessarily but my learned friend Mr Currin is askinga question of the witness of what he supposes people in the blacktownships thought or were thinking at that time. We perceiveit as a bit of an unfair question he wasn't part of the blackcommunity at that time and perhaps Mr Currin should have led theevidence when he called people who lived in the black townshipsat that time, as witnesses. MR CURRIN:: What is the view of the Chairperson, is thisquestion a valid question or is it not a valid question? CHAIRMAN:: You've asked this question in separate forms,in different ways - the same question - and the answer you'vegot is more or less the same. I am of the view that I don'tthink you can take it any further. Whether political activistsexpected that the price they will have to pay would be to be takenbefore the courts of law, tried and imprisoned, or whether theysuspected that they may one day be eliminated and so on, that'san issue which I do not think we can take very much further atthis stage. MR CURRIN:: As it pleases you Sir. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: If I understand your evidence correctly, I'vemoved away from trevits with the previous question I asked, Iwent back to the war situation. If I understand your evidencein your founding document correctly, your understanding of warfrom a security police perspective is that you got a licence tokill pro-actively, is that correct? ANSWER:: After the instructions of Brigadier Victor andBrigadier Schoon I came to the conclusion that we had to engagein a military manner against the onslaught. ANSWER:: Yes that is the case. QUESTION:: Why did you make no provisions for prisoners? ANSWER:: Detaining an activist would only have been atemporary solution, after a time the person would have been releasedthen he would have continued in his activities. We thereforealso acted pre-emptively or preventitively to see to it that furtheracts of terror would not be engaged in. QUESTION:: Detentions were extended month after monthafter month and people were detained indefinitely. ANSWER:: At some stage people would have to be released,it would have been demoralising in addition for the ANC when thesepersons were eliminated. QUESTION:: Did you ever consider with the knowledge thatyou had of making a recommendation to the government of the daythat they declare Marshall Law and that they make provision forprisoners of war and comply with the Geneva Convention and otherrelevant conventions? ANSWER:: No I never considered this. QUESTION:: I am now going to move on to the next, sorrybefore I do that I need to also in the context of the war situation, just get a bit more clarity with regard to what constitutedan activist. You've told us that activists were people who committedmurder, bombings, assault, robbery, arson, damage to property,intimidation, school boycotts, consumer boycotts and throwingstones. QUESTION:: What is your definition of...(end of side one)...tocommit for example be involved in a school boycott and stone throwing,that's an activist. Was such an activist fair game for yourhit squad? QUESTION:: When did an activist become fair game for assassination? ANSWER:: It would only have been if it was an activistwith a very high profile who engaged in several crimes and severalevents of intimidation, several instances of recruiting MK members,providing homes for terrorists or housing for terrorists, sucha person. QUESTION:: ...the number of those actions? ANSWER:: Yes the person was judged in that sense. ANSWER:: Not on my own in every instance. QUESTION:: If I understand your evidence correctly andthe evidence of other applicants who have testified, the securitypolice themselves got involved with murders, arson, damage toproperty, bombings and in fact whenever they did that they wentout of their way to make sure that it looked as if those actionswere committed by activists, is that correct? QUESTION:: Was your motivation for that, inter aliato create the impression that the country was burning and that thecountry was ungovernable by blaming all those actions on the activists? ANSWER:: It was done with the purpose partly for propagandapurposes, but also so that the broad white public would believethat these people were poorly trained, that they were blowingthemselves up and so that the white public would be under theimpression that the security forces were winning the war withease and that the ANC was incapable. The true state of affairswas never revealed to them, they had to be under the impressionthat we were winning because in the next election they would haveto vote for the government of the day again. QUESTION:: The intention was to fan the flames of warand of violence and to promote the whole feeling of a war psychosis,is that correct? ANSWER:: The disinformation which was given to the whitepublic yes, that was the case. QUESTION:: Didn't that then become a vicious circle foryou in the sense that as the country became more ungovernableand the war psychosis developed even more it in fact promotedthe need amongst yourselves for your own activities in contributingtowards the war psychosis, in creating the impression that manyof the deeds that you committed were in fact committed ratherby the activists, weren't you creating for yourselves a fertilebreeding ground for your own killings to justify your own killingsand your own actions? CHAIRMAN:: I don't understand the question because theyhad already taken a decision wherever they identified trouble makers of a particular category they would be targeted and eliminated. MR CURRIN:: Yes, the point is though Mr Chairman thatwhen they did that they didn't say that was committed by the securityforces, they created the impression that those killings were infact committed by the liberation movements. They in fact addedfuel to the war psychosis, to the total onslaught from the liberationmovements. They participated in creating the perception thatthe liberation movements were far more powerful than what theywere, which in turn justified their counter-war, that is the point. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: Do you understand that? ANSWER:: It is difficult for me Mr Currin, but I can saythis to you I cannot see how we could have created this additionalsituation as you claim, I've already said that it was done tobring the white population under the wrong impression and thatthis was propaganda. QUESTION:: ...that in turn justified the need for whatyou were doing? ANSWER:: The government knew exactly what we were doingbut the public did not. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman perhaps the correct peopleto ask these questions to should be the politicians who made thedecisions at that day and not somebody like Brigadier Cronje whowas simply an operator who did his work under the circumstancesof the position that he was in? MR CURRIN:: I'll argue that point at the end when we dealwith the argument and the question of proportionality I will arguethat the issue that I've raised with him as a question. Thankyou. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Perhaps I could ask you, was it also anobjective to incite so-called black on black violence? ANSWER:: No, no it was not the intention. In the blacktownships the security police and the police attempted to maintainorder. JUDGE NGCOBE:: If through the police propaganda certainmisdeeds in black townships were reputed to political activists,wouldn't that result in that kind of atmosphere in which blackon black violence might be unleashed? ANSWER:: That could have been part of the propaganda butI doubt that it was the case. MEMBER OF COMMITTEE(?):: If I could make it clearer foryou Brigadier Cronje, the intention of the question is this, sayfor instance someone was killed because of a bomb that explodedin a black township, the next morning it is said that this bombwas planted by the ANC, then the family members of the peoplewho died in this bombing would become angry at the ANC. Thiswould cause conflict between these two groupings, one group wouldblame the other group that it was the cause of death. I thinkthat's the question that you're being asked, whether that waspart of your intentions? ANSWER:: Chair I do not believe that the way in whichthese bombings happened would have been the way in which activistsdid it. I do not think that it could have been concluded thatthese bombings were the ANC killing their own people. They mighthave thought that it was us. QUESTION:: In many of these instances ANC members diedbecause of say the Zero bomb, if that is the case then it couldhave appeared as if someone had killed this ANC member. ANSWER:: That is the case, they could have said that wekilled them, there's no way in which they could have believedthat the ANC was killing their own people. QUESTION:: What I'm trying to imply is that other blackpeople say Inkatha were killing these activists. ANSWER:: I doubt that, I doubt that. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd) QUESTION:: Certainly the security forces always deniedany suggestion that they were responsible for those deeds, correct? QUESTION:: I am now going to move on to the question ofinstructions and accountability as one of the themes. In yourevidence you said that all events within your jurisdiction weretaken up in situation reports and sent to head office daily. Is that correct? QUESTION:: Those reports were also sent to the State SecurityCouncil? ANSWER:: In a single countrywide report, yes. QUESTION:: Summaries then of those situation reports tothe State Security Council. ANSWER:: That would have been someone at head office butI wouldn't know who that would have been. QUESTION:: ...did you send your situation reports to? ANSWER:: I marked the reports for the attention of myhead office, from there it would have gone to the commanding officeror his second-in-command. ANSWER:: General Van der Merwe and I believe BrigadierBroodryk. They would then have devolved(?) these reports QUESTION:: That report would then eventually, summarieswould eventually have got to the State Security Council? ANSWER:: It was discussed every morning in what they referredto as the "San Hedron", it was a meeting of all thesection heads or heads of units at the head office, this was referredto as the "San Hedron". ANSWER:: Maybe you should ask the Archbishop, he can informyou what the San Hedron is. (Discussion aside re San Hedron). QUESTION:: Subsequently there would have been a jointreport drafted for the purpose of being referred to the StateSecurity Council. QUESTION:: That consolidated report went to the StateSecurity Council? QUESTION:: Were those detailed reports, the situationreports? QUESTION:: Which mentioned all activities, tortures, identifiedtargets, assassinations if there were to be any or if there hadbeen any, all of that would be mentioned in those reports? ANSWER:: Only the incidents of the previous day wouldhave been mentioned. QUESTION:: Brigadier you say you accept it as a fact,or you would state it as a fact that these summary reports wouldhave gone to the State Security Council is that the case? QUESTION:: On what grounds would you claim that this isa fact, what facts do you have in your own possession, on whatgrounds can you state to this Committee that it is a fact thatthis occurred? What particular knowledge do you have in thisregard? ANSWER:: For a while during my command of Vlakplaas Iattended these meetings. QUESTION:: You know therefore from your own knowledgethat this was passed on? QUESTION:: There were also meetings of the joint management,was it Joint Management System? ANSWER:: JMS, Joint Management Systems, the JMS consistedof the military, the army, the uniformed branch of the police,the security branch of the police as well as a number of governmentdepartments. QUESTION:: ...document you say that there were representativesfrom the teaching profession as well as the Citizen Protectionrepresentatives. QUESTION:: Did the sort of detail of your activities getshared with representatives from the teaching profession and theCitizen Protection representatives at those meetings? ANSWER:: They were members of the meeting and all theincidents which occurred over a certain period would then havebeen mentioned. QUESTION:: ...qualify say from the teaching professionto participate in those meetings? QUESTION:: ...teaching profession would be at the meetingof that nature, principals of schools or... QUESTION:: ...from the Department of Education? ANSWER:: That is the case, yes from the various governmentdepartments. QUESTION:: Citizen Protection representatives, what doesthat mean? ANSWER:: That would have been the head of Civil Defencesince at certain times there were cases discussed or incidentsdiscussed say under an emergency situation, a bombing, then CivilDefence would have had certain responsibilities in that regard. QUESTION:: ...civilians? (Start of questions often inaudible,no microphone). ANSWER:: Yes they were civilians. QUESTION:: And the City Councils or the Town Councils,were they also at meetings of that nature? ANSWER:: Not under normal circumstances, certainly sometimesthere were representatives, there were say mayors, members ofCity Councils but this was an irregular occurrence. QUESTION:: ...these civilians then knew of the nature andextent of the operations of the Security Forces, including thekillings and the tortures etc? ANSWER:: You refer to tortures, I don't think that ina meeting such as that I would have said that someone was tortured,I would rather say that yesterday two or three houses were bombedor possibly such and such a person had been or an activist, orhad died in a shooting incident. I would not have referred totortures. QUESTION:: ...particularly honest or would you say "in'n skietvoorval", or would you say we took him out and weshot ANSWER:: Of course I wouldn't have said that. QUESTION:: We don't know that and that's what we needto hear from you. So the nature and extent of these operationsand the level of unlawfulness of the activities were not sharedwith those civilians is that what you are saying? QUESTION:: In respect of all these incidents and all thesereports, there were records, there were files? QUESTION:: All these situation reports which were thentaken up in a report to the State Security Council, all of thatwas documentation and at one stage there were records of all ofthose activities? QUESTION:: ...that those records have also all been destroyed? ANSWER:: I can't comment on the destruction of the documentationbecause I had already at that time left the police force. QUESTION:: ...said that at no stage were any of your actionsever repudiated by the State Security Council? QUESTION:: You regarded that as implied authority at leastfor what you were doing? MEMBER OF COMMITTEE:: Brigadier in a previous case weheard testimony that these Joint Management Systems involved allState departments, all government departments apart from Justice,is that the case? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRAN (contd) QUESTION:: In your evidence you said it was just the,as far as you knew, the Department of Law & Order and Defence? ANSWER:: I also referred to other State departments. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman as far as I remember he wascommenting on the State Security Council. QUESTION:: That is correct, sorry. With regard to instructions,you also said that you had a general and broad instruction tocarry out, sorry can I just rephrase that? You gave a generaland broad instruction to your underlings that they were authorisedto carry out certain types of deeds depending on the circumstancesand at their discretion, and then it would not be necessary eachtime to come back for a specific instruction. Is that correct? ANSWER:: That it was not always necessary, normally itwas not necessary under these circumstances of war to come backto me in every case. I did, with regard to Hechter, also gavea general instruction. QUESTION:: Which included an instruction to kill withoutreverting to you if, in his discretion, it was warranted? ANSWER:: It did include this, but in most cases he wouldfirst have discussed it with me, due to the time factor and thenecessity of the case, no he was not obliged. QUESTION:: Was that general instruction not subject toabuse? QUESTION:: That general instruction which you issued toyour underlings, surely that was something that was subject toabuse? ANSWER:: I knew my staff very well and I trusted Hechterentirely that he would not have abused this instruction. QUESTION:: The instructions to you to kill, you say camefrom higher authority, in your evidence you were given an instructionfor example by Brigadier, now I think General Van der Merwe whowas head of the Security Branch and Brigadier Broodryk? ANSWER:: Brigadier Broodryk never gave me instructionsto kill. QUESTION:: Only General Van der Merwe? ANSWER:: General Van der Merwe, as my immediate superioror as the superior of the Security Branch, yes did give me thisinstruction. QUESTION:: We've heard that the instructions of that nature,certain instructions of bombings, came from a political level. We heard in General Van der Merwe's evidence that the instructionto bomb Khotso House came from Mr Vlok? QUESTION:: Are you aware of any other specific, not generalbut specific instruction, which came from that high politicallevel to commit acts of that nature? ANSWER:: Only in the case of these yellow hand-grenadesin which case General Van der Merwe informed me that this instructionhad been discussed with General Coetzee and that he gained authorityfor this from Minister Le Grange as well as P W Botha. QUESTION:: The fact that at least on certain occasions you were told that these instructions were coming from the highestpolitical level, did that make you assume that generally speakinginstructions of that nature came from JUDGE NGCOBE:: Sorry can I just ask something? The discretionenjoyed by your underlings, for example not to come back to youeverytime, did that also include competence to identify targetsthemselves, targets for elimination? ANSWER:: No, if they identified a target they would firsthave discussed this with me, I would then have given them furtherinstructions. QUESTION:: In that case how much room was left for theirdiscretion with regard to the elimination of the target? ANSWER:: The could use their discretion to some extentin this regard, but then they would have subsequently informedme that they had done so. QUESTION:: ...would they use their discretion? ANSWER:: If there were not sufficient time, if they hadto act immediately on information then they would have used theirdiscretion. QUESTION:: It is still not clear to me to what extent,in what way they would use their discretion. Can I ask you whetherwhat you are saying is that where there were constraints of timethey were competent to identify a target as well and then decideto eliminate it and then only later come and tell you that we'veidentified a target and we have eliminated it? ANSWER:: Yes that is the case. QUESTION:: Did such situations arise where they themselves,I'm talking about your underlings, identified targets and theneliminated targets? QUESTION:: The instructions that you were getting wereclearly instructions to commit crimes as a policeman? QUESTION:: Did you feel obliged to carry out those instructions,and if so why? ANSWER:: I did feel obliged. From my youth, throughcollege, on every course that we went as police officers we wereindoctrinated that apartheid was right and that we had to combatcommunism. We had to maintain apartheid and combat communism. ANSWER:: Could you just repeat the question? QUESTION:: You've partly answered the question, I wantedto know why you felt obliged to carry out these unlawful instructions. QUESTION:: I'm going to ask you a few questions aboutthe security legislation and the emergency regulations. Thesecurity police throughout the 80's, right up to the early 90's,made very effective use of the powers given to them in terms ofthe Internal Security Act and the Emergency Regulations, you weregiven extensive powers. To what extent did you use those powersas a security policeman? ANSWER:: These powers were used until the state of emergencywas called after the instruction which I received from GeneralVictor, the situation changed entirely, it was a completely ungovernablesituation, it then...(side two of tape ends).. QUESTION:: ...right up until the early 90's there werethousands of people in detention and you know that too, the security police used those provisions right up until the end ofthe P W Botha era. ANSWER:: That is the case Chair, it was done in most casesonly with regard to activists who were involved in school boycottsand consumer boycotts and that manner of activity, it was notused against the high profile activist. QUESTION:: ...high profile activists were not taken intodetention? ANSWER:: Some were detained and then they could leave,at the end of their detention they could just continue. QUESTION:: ...high profile activists were under housearrest throughout the 80's, were detained without trial on manyoccasions throughout the 80's. CHAIRMAN:: It seems those were the more fortunate ones. MR CURRAN:: That is correct but I'm just contesting thefact that they stopped using those regulations after 1986, it'ssimply not true. QUESTION:: Do you agree with that? ANSWER:: Certainly persons were still detained after 1986but not the high profile activists. QUESTION:: If you were not subject to the South AfricanPolice Act in regard to these activities, the emergency regulations,the security legislation, you worked outside all of those legalprovisions, was there anything that you established for yourselvesto regulate and to inform your duties and document that you wrotefor yourselves as a security police which would then apply toyour activities? ANSWER:: I don't understand the question. QUESTION:: ...began to operate completely outside of thelaw, what I'm trying to establish is whether at any stage you sat down and said we are operating outside of the laws ofthe land but we still need to regulate our activities to someextent, we need to establish lines of communication, accountability,do's and don'ts, certain actions will not be acceptable, did youever create any regulations for yourselves once you began to operateoutside of the laws of the land? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I have to correct one thing,there was never any evidence that they in total acted outsidethe law in totality. The evidence was that in certain instancesthey acted outside of the law so the formulation of the questionof my learned friend is not correct. I think he should formulatethe question so that it pertains to those instances in which therewere actions taken outside of the law. QUESTION:: I would have thought that was obvious but thatis what I mean. CHAIRMAN:: Well I don't think it was so obvious I gotthe impression that you said they were acting outside the law,didn't you have some other law within which you were working. QUESTION:: I am trying to establish whether in regard totheir unlawful activities, and in particular the tortures andthe assassinations which they were involved in, whether as a groupof people they established for themselves any norms, standards,regulations which they would comply with. ANSWER:: Chair as Mr Curran says, I was acting outsidethe law, I would have been a fool if I put that in writing. MEMBER OF COMMITTEE:: I think you must understand theintention of the question. Mr Curran wants to know, you were acting outside the law, you of course didn't put anythingin writing but did you have some sort of code of honour or somethingwhich would have implied that you would not go beyond a certainpoint, that certain things were allowed outside the law but noteverything was allowed? ANSWER:: I believe that everyone who worked with me knewexactly what they were allowed to do and what they were not allowedto do. We would have discussed it and we would have given ourselvessome kind of measure in terms of which we would have worked, someguidelines or framework. QUESTION:: That is the question, what kind of frameworkdid you have? ...that were participating, you just assumed thatwithin each person there was that self-regulation, is that whatyou are saying? ANSWER:: After we had discussed it, yes. Let me giveyou an example - children were not targets, innocent people werenot targets, activists who were involved only in school boycottswere not targets. QUESTION:: ...identified a high profile person that inyour view should not be detained but rather eliminated how didyou know that a detention and an interrogation would not havethe desired effect if you didn't at least try that route first? ANSWER:: We worked in terms of the reports of our informants,we realised that the person had to be interrogated, the personwas interrogated in such a way that we had to get the informationfrom the person. If then this person was hurt and then detained,we knew that a magistrate would have had access and that we wouldhave been in trouble. QUESTION:: Many of our clients were never detained, theywere just assassinated. In your evidence you've said the purposeof interrogation, the purpose of detention and interrogation isbasically threefold; (1) to intimidate the person, to stop that person from beingan activist (2) to try and intimidate that person to become an informant,and That's the purpose of a detention and interrogation. I wantto ask you why you did not first detain people on whose behalfwe are acting before you went out and eliminated them? ANSWER:: In the first place once we interrogated the personand once we gained the information, this person's, the peoplewho gave this person instructions would have known what informationthis person had access to, they would therefore have changed theirplans. Terrorists of whom they knew would have escaped and goneinto hiding in different places. We also had to protect ourinformants because the person would have been able to point outour informants and we had to protect our informants. JUDGE WILSON:: Could I interrupt again? The questionbefore this, as I understand your evidence and I would like youto tell me, you said you worked on information from informantsand after that you had to interrogate people and that if thatperson was hurt and then detained he would have access to a magistrateand "we would be in trouble", did you say that? QUESTION:: By that you mean that you would kill someone because he happened to have been hurt during interrogation andyou didn't want to be in trouble with the magistrate? ANSWER:: That partly is what I am saying. QUESTION:: I now would like to ask you a few questionsabout informants. You said there were about, at one stage yousaid or I think it was you who said there were about 500 informersthat worked within your jurisdiction, is that correct? ANSWER:: I did not refer to 500, but it was in that regionof about 500 people. QUESTION:: ...informers were paid for information? QUESTION:: That means that they weren't paid a set monthlysalary but when they brought information they were paid for whatthey brought? Is that correct? ANSWER:: Many of them were paid a monthly amount, otherswere paid in terms of the information that they gave, and theamount was also determined by the value of the information. QUESTION:: Was the information that they brought to youvery suspect? ANSWER:: Certainly, we always took care to assure thatthe information from one informant was confirmed by another informant. The informants did not know each other or one another. QUESTION:: ...surely that if that person is paid to bringinformation to you that person needs some money to buy bread andthat that in itself is a motivation to bring information and toeven look for information which may not be correct? QUESTION:: Is it also not correct that if an informerwas not performing and was not providing the sort of informationthat you would require, it would be necessary to kill that informer? ANSWER:: No that would not have been necessary. QUESTION:: What would you do with an informer that hadbeen working with you and who didn't produce, say an informerthat had been working with you for two years who didn't produceinformation, did you just pat him on the back and say thanks verymuch you are now excused? ANSWER:: Certainly we would not have used his servicesany further. QUESTION:: Hadn't that informer in the course and scopeof his or her employment gathered important information aboutthe activities of the security police and what you were up toand would be a danger? ANSWER:: No he would not have been a danger to us becausehe knew nothing about our activities, he did not know how thesecurity police operated. He would not have had any informationavailable to him that could hurt us. QUESTION:: ...know that they would come to you, give youinformation about an activist, where the activist lived and thatyou then would go out and blow up the activist's house, surelyinformers knew what you were up to? ANSWER:: That is the case but the informant also knewthat we could leak his name to the ANC and then he would neverbe able to work again. QUESTION:: ...directly, you would do it indirectly? ANSWER:: If we thought that this person was a threat andif the person threatened to give information about us away, thenwe would have leaked his name. MS KHAMPEPE:: Brigadier Cronje, how were informers recruited,you had various categories of informers, would you mind explainingto us how these were recruited and the different categories thereof? ANSWER:: Informants would have been persons who gatheredinformation for us say concerning school boycotts, concerningactivists, they might have been persons close to an activist,persons trusted by an activist and we recruited them in this way. We would send some of our members to them or someone like SgtMamasela who would have approached the potential informant, wewould have offered the person payment, money. There were informantswho were recruited locally, there were also informants who wererecruited to be sent out abroad for military training and thenupon their return they worked in a clandestine way for us. QUESTION:: ...common cause that there are informers whohave been killed by the security forces? QUESTION:: Finally I just would like to ask you a fewquestions about propaganda. You said in your founding documentthat a war psychosis was created by the South African Governmentre the total onslaught in the context of the fight against theANC, liberation movements, communism and that the true picturewas never made known to the white community. CHAIRMAN:: Where are you reading from Mr Curran? MR CURRAN:: From my notes, that was the general (indistinct)of his evidence. CHAIRMAN:: He's given that evidence, yes. QUESTION:: Is that correct, I have summarised a largesection of it and that is my understanding of what he says. Isthat correct? QUESTION:: You've said that the true picture with regardto South Africa was never given to the white community, that therewas propaganda about a war psychosis in regard to the total onslaught. Is that correct? ANSWER:: That is the case, the true picture was that areal situation of war did exist, any person in the black areas,working in the black townships would be able to tell you the same. The media however, the press were kept out of the black townshipson the instructions of the Government of the day, they were notallowed in the black townships. If you found a member of themedia in the townships you took his film and you allowed him toleave the township. They were not able to gather a true pictureof what the state of affairs had been. QUESTION:: ...psychosis is not the true picture? ANSWER:: Not with regard to that which the Governmentwanted to communicate to the public, the white public. QUESTION:: ...propaganda to create a perception of totalonslaught, wasn't that precisely what the politicians were doing? ANSWER:: They did create the perception of total onslaughtbut they did not give the true picture. QUESTION:: In your founding document I got the impressionthat you were saying that even the security police were victimsof propaganda by the Government, is that what you were saying? ANSWER:: I've already said that the security police mainly and including the uniform branch at every one of their courses,were indoctrinated that apartheid was correct and that communismand the ANC were the monsters and that they had to be combatted. QUESTION:: It's just in regard to that but not in regardto the total onslaught? QUESTION:: The implications then of your evidence, aswe understand it in conclusion, is that there was a police hitsquad on the highest level, acting with the authority and instructionsfrom the National Party, that it identified targets for assassination,that it reported back to the State Security Council and that theseactivities had the blessing of the State Security Council. ThatCouncil was chaired by the President, P W Botha and that all theother portfolios were represented, except for Justice? ANSWER:: Justice was not involved at a joint managementsystem level. QUESTION:: ...State Security Council was chaired by theState President and also on that structure was the Minister ofLaw & Order, at the time was Mr Vlok, and General Malan asMinister of Defence after Louis Le Grange? ANSWER:: Louis Le Grange was never Minister of Defence. I can mention in addition that P W Botha in public said thatwe would eliminate terrorists and their fellow-travellers. Hemust have known what we were doing. QUESTION:: I have no further questions to put to thiswitness other than to say Mr Chairman that in regard to the questionof authority and instructions, we think that it would be importantin the context of instructions and authority, that the Chairpersonof the State Security Council and other members be subpoenaed to testify before thisCommittee because the instructions from our clients are that theywould like us to question them on the allegations of instructionsand knowledge of the activities of the applicants. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRAN CHAIRMAN:: At some stage I'd like you to formulate yourrequest so that the Committee can consider it. Mr Mpshe haveyou any questions to ask of this witness? CHAIRMAN:: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Brigadier Cronje could you please with regardto informants, just sketch for us whether there were differentcategories of informants, just in the broadest sense, what categoriesof informants existed? ANSWER:: There were informants at every one of our sections,that's the black unit, the trade union unit, the churches unitand all the general organisations had informants. QUESTION:: Would there have been informants on differentlevels, would there have been more trustworthy and less trustworthyinformants, did you classify them? ANSWER:: Yes there were certain informants where we hadalready evaluated their information and determined that underall circumstances their information was correct. Certain otherinformants were less trustworthy or less reliable and they werecategorised in this way. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you page to page 28 of yourapplication? The propaganda to which you referred which theGovernment waged, if you want to put it like that, towards the white public, could you again in terms of the questionsasked of you read the second paragraph on page 28 with regardto propaganda because this contains the core of what you saidwith regard to this propaganda. ANSWER:: It was an excellent way in which the propagandawent in every form of Government, it can be found in the bookof President Mandela, "Long walk to freedom" on page405 where President Mandela says the following and it is quoted "..and worked for the prison service. He was properlybrainwashed by the Government's propaganda. He would have believedthat we were terrorists and communists who wanted to drive thewhite man into the sea." QUESTION:: That is fine then. Brigadier you've alreadygiven testimony in this regard but you were asked questions withregard to the reasons for the elimination of terrorists. Youwere asked again and again for the reasons of elimination. Therewere a general justification for the elimination of activistsunder certain circumstance given in your application at everyincident where you eliminate someone. Is that the case? QUESTION:: Brigadier were your actions during 1986 and87 primarily aimed at the elimination of activists or did thesecurity branch also carry out a range of responsibilities. ANSWER:: This is one of the lesser responsibilities ofthe security police. QUESTION:: Could you give us an indication of how largea part, in terms of percentage, of the security police eliminationsentailed? ANSWER:: A very small percentage. QUESTION:: Brigadier then I want to in addition ask you,you've said that eliminations was a very small percentage of yourtasks, would it have been fairly general or was this only in exceptionalcases that activists were eliminated? ANSWER:: Only in exceptional instances. JUDGE NGCOBE:: He's asking a question generally relatingto political activists and you say that the elimination was anexception. What about among political activists of a high profile,specifically that group of people, was the elimination a generalrule or an exception? I'm talking about activists of a highprofile, you used that phrase yourself. QUESTION:: I would not say that it occurred seldom, itdid occur more regularly. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier you were also asked with regard tointerrogations, where information was gained and then subsequentlywhere people were killed, you were asked what the reason wouldhave been for their elimination. Would that be covered underyour general explanation for eliminations of particular activistsas in your application? QUESTION:: The fact that the information might have beenrevealed to magistrates and that that would refer to the interrogations,this would then not have been the only reason why such a personwould have been eliminated? ANSWER:: No it would not have been the only reason. JUDGE WILSON:: ...it was the injury? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes I understand that Mr Chairman maybeI should just formulate the question correctly. QUESTION:: The question was asked Brigadier Cronje, onceyou've interrogated someone, did you then eliminate the personbecause you were scared that the manner of interrogation wouldhave come under the attention of a magistrate and you would havebeen in trouble? ANSWER:: No that was not the reason. QUESTION:: Was it the only reason? ANSWER:: No it was not the only reason. QUESTION:: Were there additional reasons for the eliminationof such a person? ANSWER:: Yes, as I've explained with regard to information,the protection of sources and the uselessness of the information. QUESTION:: Would that have been the general reason forthe elimination of an activist? QUESTION:: Brigadier did you or your subordinates at anystage, eliminate someone simply because you were afraid that informationwith regard to the manner of interrogation would have come underthe attention of a magistrate? QUESTION:: Brigadier you were also asked with regard toinstructions and whether those who worked under you knew whatto do. Were instructions normally given in writing or orally? ANSWER:: Not in writing, orally. QUESTION:: Would instructions in the broadest sense, interms of which your subordinates acted, would that also have beengiven orally? QUESTION:: Mr Cronje, if Mr Mamasela was sent to someoneto entice the person to come to you or to give information for youor to you, and should it then happen that you had to kidnap theperson or if you interrogated the person, then actually this wasa death sentence because the next day you could have told peoplethat you saw Mr Masemela? QUESTION:: If this person approached a potential informeror someone, then it would have been a death sentence? ANSWER:: Mamasela worked in the townships under the coverof being a terrorist, he would have immediately have had his identityrevealed. (end of tape 4 side 1)... QUESTION:: In general the propaganda on which you gavetestimony in terms of which you, your people and so on were broughtunder, was this propaganda mainly aimed at white people? ANSWER:: Yes it was mainly aimed at the white population. QUESTION:: Brigadier, with regard to the intimidationby the security police, would that have been aimed primarily againstmembers of the liberation movements? ANSWER:: Yes it would have been aimed at them. QUESTION:: Brigadier you have given testimony with regardto your reports to your head office with regard to events thathad occurred. Would you have mentioned in these reports if anactivist was eliminated and would you then say that this activistwas eliminated or would you simply say there was an occurrence,an incident, and that during this incident the activist died. How would you say this? ANSWER:: I would have referred to it as "an incident",I would not have used the word "elimination". QUESTION:: Would you have mentioned who was responsiblefor the death of the activist? QUESTION:: Brigadier you were asked with regard to warcrimes and the Geneva Convention, how did you see your actionsand that of your subordinates in view of the situation of war,the state of war. Would you have seen your actions as part ofthis war? ANSWER:: I considered our actions as part of the war andas necessary in order to win the war. QUESTION:: Did you consider these acts of yours as crimes? QUESTION:: Brigadier you've heard testimony with regardto Make, Makope and Sefola, in that particular case would youhave said that the actions of Captain Hechter would have beena case where he acted with his own discretion? ANSWER:: Yes it would have been. QUESTION:: Did you ever see Mr Make? ANSWER:: No, I did not know him at all. QUESTION:: Who at that time recruited your informantsfor the Section? ANSWER:: Every Section recruited its own informants sothere wasn't a particular person who would have recruited informants. The Black Power movement would have recruited their own informants. The white union, the labour union unit, the churches unit etc. QUESTION:: We've heard, I'm not quite sure what the rankwas but of a certain I think Captain Van Wyk, W/O Van Wyk. DidW/O Van Wyk work in your section? QUESTION:: Did he do recruiting for you or was he notresponsible for recruiting? ANSWER:: Every member had the task of recruiting QUESTION:: Brigadier, the handling of informants was aparticular person responsible for handling a particular informant? ANSWER:: Only the person who recruited an informant orif he was transferred then one other person would have dealt witha particular informant. QUESTION:: So that would have been the only person withwhom the informant was supposed to have contact? QUESTION:: Brigadier, the discussions at the Joint ManagementSystem, would that primarily have referred to the eliminationof activists or would it have referred to a wider range of acts,my apologies I'm referring to trevits, I'm asking you whetherdiscussions at trevits whether you know whether it only concernedeliminations or whether the discussions there also covered a widerrange of topics? ANSWER:: It would only have been with regard to targetsand eliminations. QUESTION:: At the Joint Management Systems, the JMS? ANSWER:: No there the discussion was the broader, moregeneral circumstances in the country. QUESTION:: Brigadier you sometimes received instructionsfrom your commanding officers, is that correct? If you receivedan instruction to handle a certain operation on the grounds ofcertain information, would you have expected that your officerswould on the grounds of that information, handle it? ANSWER:: I would have believed that they would have alreadyhad that information. QUESTION:: Brigadier if some of your inferiors would receive instructions from other people in higher rank than them,who was not you based on certain information and if they got aninstruction to act on certain information, and that informationwas given to them and that that was the information they weresupposed to act on, were they expected to verify that information? ANSWER:: Not if they knew that person very well, likein the example of Basie Smit, he was a complete stranger theydid not trust him and they did not act on his instructions. QUESTION:: Would it have been strange if they acted, likein the case of Basie Smit, with the mandrax tablets? ANSWER:: Yes it would have been. QUESTION:: In other words Brigadier, if I understood youcorrectly, if somebody else in a commanding position came to CaptainHechter and said that he had information that somebody acted inthis or that way and that he was an activist and that these andthese things, would it not have been important to verify that? QUESTION:: You also said, you testified about the instructionsof Brigadier Victor and Brigadier Schoon and that in your viewthe correctness of the action regarding the Zero handgrenade wasverified. Were there also other things that strengthened thisimpression of yours? ANSWER:: Yes the instructions I got to handle operationsacross the border. QUESTION:: Could you identify them? ANSWER:: Yes, the attack in Swaziland which instructionwe received from General Strydom, Steenkamp apologies. I receiveda award in that regard. QUESTION:: You are asking for amnesty in that regard but was that particular instruction to eliminate someone in Swaziland? QUESTION:: Then you received a medal for that action,when was this broadly speaking, was it before the Zero handgrenade? ANSWER:: This was in 1983 already. QUESTION:: Brigadier, how did you view the state of war,what was your view on the state of war, was this war initiatedby the security forces and countered by the freedom or liberationmovements or was it initiated by the liberation movements andcountered by the security forces. How did you view it? ANSWER:: Let me put it to you in this way, the war wasstarted by the liberation organisations, by the ANC, by terroristsfrom neighbouring countries who were sent to South Africa. Therewere various landmine incidents on the borders, farms who wereattacked, farmers who were killed, it was that first phase ofwhat would then follow, the war would later extend inside thecountry. The security forces countered the war, they were inthe defensive position. QUESTION:: Brigadier I want to refer you to a particulardocument, to a document with regard to the situation of war, thestate of war and the questions of Mr Curran in that regard. You have certain documents with you, I want to refer you to thepresentation of the ANC with regard to Human Rights violations. (COPIES OF DOCUMENT HANDED UP). MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have already made copies of the whole documentwhich I intend to deal with during argument right at the end ofthe hearings. JUDGE WILSON:: We wish to request that you make a copy available to the interpreters. MR DU PLESSIS:: I am sorry Mr Chairman I have one copy,not a copy available for them I'm sorry, I forgot about that MrChairman. CHAIRMAN:: The document we are now talking about thatyou will refer to, that was of the representations made by theANC? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman. There are various otherdocuments which I'm going to use now which I will also providein total during argument. I'm only relying in re-examinationon specific paragraphs and specific pages of the documents. My secretary has been making copies throughout last week and thisweek about full-time Mr Chairman. That would be "L",thank you Mr Chairman. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier Cronje could you look at the firstpage, that is page 52, what I want you to do Brigadier Cronjeis on page 52 to read to the Committee from the ANC's presentationand I want you to read on the right-hand column, the 4th paragraphwhich begins "by the end of 1985..." Please read untilI stop you. Could you please read loudly? "...an official ANC pamphlet entitled 'take the struggleto the white areas' was distributed inside the country. Targetswere identified as the racist army. Death squads, agents andstooges in our midst and..." I am unable to read the next word: "...and the will to take the war to the white areas isdefined as follows; strengthening our workers, organisations and engaging a unitedaction in factories, mines, farms and suburbs; spreading the consumer boycott to all areas of the country; organised and well-planned demonstrations in white suburbs andcentral business districts; forming underground units and combat groups in our places ofwork and taking such actions as sabotage in the factories, mines,farms and suburbs and disrupting the enemy's oil energy, transport,communications and other vital systems; a systematic attack against the army and police and the so-calledarea defence units in the white areas; well-planned raids on the armouries and dumps of the army, police,farmers and so on to secure arms for our units;" QUESTION:: Brigadier you can then continue to the second-lastparagraph. "...The period between 1985 and 1988 witnessed unprecedentedviolence overwhelmingly directed at black civilians as the regimefought to regain the strategic initiative it had lost. It employedunbridled terrorists, violence and a range of overt and covertmeasures which are dealt with more fully elsewhere in this document. MK attacks mounted steadily with most operations concentratedon targets as set out in ANC policy. There was an all-round intensificationof efforts to destroy all organs of the apartheid state to encourage theemergence of the people's war summed up in a 1986 slogan 'everypatriot a combatant - every combatant a patriot' and to promotethe establishment of organs of people's power. By the end of1986 the regime had lost administrative control over large partsof the country. It was during the mid-80's that attacks on certaintargets with no directly apparent connection to the apartheidstate took place. In some areas these attacks resulted fromthe manner in which cadres interpreted the decision to sharplyintensify the armed struggle which would entail exercising lessrestraint and the call to take the struggle to the white areas. Militant rhetoric in (indistinct) articles reflected the moodof the times. The attack on South African refugees in Botswanaby the racist forces just before the conference, emphasised theneed for our movement to bleed the enemy. Most of those cadreswho carried out bona fide operations of this nature hadreason to believe that they were operating in accordance withthe political will of the leadership of the ANC, but the apartheidregime was very quick to exploit this tactical shift with regardto its intensification of the struggle and shift and focus ofarmed operations combined with the misinterpretation of thosedecisions by some cadres, carried out a number of false flag attackson civilian targets with the sole objective of destroying theANC's claim to the moral QUESTION:: This is also what Mr Curran stated to you,could you continue in the next column in the middle of the pagefrom "...in August 1988"? "In August 1988 the NEC, the National Elective(?) Councilissued statements specifically on the conduct of the armed strugglein the country. The NEC further reaffirmed the centrality ofthe armed struggle in a national democratic revolution and theneed to further escalate armed actions and transform our offensiveinto a generalised people's war. However, the NEC also expressedconcern at the recent spate of attacks on civilian targets, someof these attacks have been carried out by cadres of the people'sarmy Umkhonto we Sizwe inspired by anger at the regime's campaignof terror against the oppressed and democratic forces, both withinand outside South Africa. In certain instances certain operationalcircumstances resulted in unintended casualties." QUESTION:: Brigadier now I want to ask you whether whatyou have just read from the ANC's paper, would that have confirmedyour understanding of the so-called "people's war" ofthe ANC that was being waged during the period of 1985/86/87? QUESTION:: Brigadier I want to then refer you to the secretdocument of the State Security Council... CHAIRMAN:: This will be EXHIBIT M. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, this starts on page 56. It isa document containing the following. It is a conversation withChris Hani who was a member of the Executive Council of the ANC,he was also the army commissar of MK, it was published in Sitraba(?)during December 1986 in the ...I want to ask you to read it brieflyor in part from this document. My apologies this is from theFoundation for Equality Before the Law, I referred you to thewrong document. Mr Chairman that's the presentation that wasmade by the Stigting ...voor die Reg, before the Truth Commission,it is part of that document before the Human Rights ViolationsCommission. Foundation for Equality before the Law. Brigadiercould you then begin to read in the middle of the page that isunderlined, the question asked "...6 has been declared theyear of Umkhonto we Sizwe, what do you think has been the progressand achievement of MK in the military field. Could you justread from there please? This is on page 56, the middle parthas an underlined sentence, can you see this? If you can startfrom "if we go back"? "If we go back to the days when the President of the AfricanNational Congress, who is in fact the Commander-in-Chief of Umkhontowe Sizwe, designated it we shall remember that this is the yearof Umkhonto we Sizwe, the people's army, for the following reasons; it has become very clear that the enemy has no other optionin the solution of the problems of the country except violenceand we also know that the tensions, the escalation of the militant resistance ofour people has been the violent response of the enemy. In theface of the escalating violence of the enemy, the revolutionaryviolence of the people becomes very, very important and we knowthat the revolutionary violence of the oppressed people of ourcountry is epitomised by MK is the revolutionary violent arm ofour people. The designation of the year as the year of MK isa clarion call to the people's army, MK, to escalate the armedstruggle. Now you are asking what have we achieved in the militaryfield, I believe in all modesty that MK has become a permanentfeature of the struggle of our national liberation and socialemancipation, we have enriched the struggles of our people byintroducing the armed element. The enemy statement itself hasadmitted openly that 1986 has seen an unprecedented escalationof armed struggle. I believe we have taken the armed struggletoday to every corner of our country. We have, for instance,spread the armed struggle to areas which in the past few yearswere not affected by armed struggle. We know that for a longtime the armed struggle tended to be confined to the Transvaaland Natal but this year our units have spread armed activitiesto the whole of the Cape Province as well as to the Orange FreeState. Our units have been in action in the Western Cape attackingpolice stations and installations of the enemy. What is importantis that we have converged with the forces on the ground, what I mean by thisis that the militant upsurge of our people has thrown up thousandsof activists, who have reached the same conclusion as the ANC,that the crucial aspect of our struggle is the armed one. Wehave got young militants literally numbering thousands confrontingthe enemy. At the beginning of course, these militant youthsconfronted the enemy with stones, petrol bombs but now we haveintroduced an armed element to the militancy of our young people. We have introduced hand grenades. I think this has deepenedthe development of the process we began to see last year, thegrowing ungovernability of our country as a result of the armedelement of the struggle, including MK and other armed units, militaryunits of our people which are born out of the struggle. Ourpeople have utilised the skills we have imparted on them, dealwith the police, community councils, collaborationist elements,by so doing we have rendered most townships ungovernable." QUESTION:: Thank you Brigadier, could you then in thenext paragraph only read the sentence "I think the most significantpart..." "The most significant part of this escalation was the attackin the very heartland of the Transkei Bantustan, Umtata, wherethe MK unit literally overran a police station, killing more than10 puppet police." QUESTION:: Brigadier if you could page to page 59 andread the underlined part in the third paragraph? "...with the entire oppressed population is involved ina mass militant struggle against the enemy, literally not collaboratingand rejecting that Government." QUESTION:: Could you then page to page 61, the third paragraph,only the underlined part? "...spreading in our country, the rural areas, the farmsthemselves have become theatres of our operation in the Northernand the Eastern Transvaal." QUESTION:: Then Brigadier if you could page to page 65the second paragraph, the middle sentence beginning "neverbefore have we reached...", please read from there. "Never before have we reached a situation in our countrywhere, even according to the admission of the enemy himself, theactivities of MK are escalating everyday. Without exaggerationI would think that never before have we seen such unparalleledachievements by members of the people's army, the level of performanceof MK has improved even more." QUESTION:: Could you then page a couple of sentences downto the fourth paragraph from the top and read the underlined bit? "We have for instance dealt with a lot of strategic installations of the enemy, we have attacked I thinkfor the third time Sasol. We participated in the trade unionstruggle by attacking the offices of Anglo American, Gencor andother mining houses. We have been attacking police stations,homes of police." QUESTION:: That which Mr Chris Hani said here would thathave been your view of the state of affairs during that time? QUESTION:: Could you now turn to page 66, there is a questionasked to Mr Hani. Brigadier I want you to read from the second-lastparagraph. "So the necklace was a weapon devised by the oppressedthemselves to remove this cancer from our society, the cancerof collaboration of the puppets. We have our own revolutionarymethods of dealing with collaborators, the methods of the ANCbut I refuse to condemn our people when the mete out their owntraditional forms of justice to these who collaborate." QUESTION:: Do you understand this as a refusal to rejectthe necklacing approach of killing someone? QUESTION:: Then on page 67, could you read the first paragraph? "As far as I'm concerned the question of the necklace andhow it should be used belongs to all of us, to the ANC, to thedemocratic movement. We should sit down and discuss amongst ourselves how we shouldmete out justice. What is revolutionary justice. One factis that where agents and collaborators are concerned, we shouldestablish where is it possible our own revolutionary course wherejustice should be meted out." QUESTION:: Would you see this as a reference to the sol-calledpeople's courts which existed in that time? QUESTION:: Could you then read the third-last paragraph,the underlined part. "The necklace has been used against those...(end of side2)... QUESTION:: Brigadier, the last question at the bottomof page 67... "...of the ANC applies equally to the attitude of bombingof beaches, cinemas and so on." QUESTION:: Could you read the response of Mr Hani on page68? "It applies to the bombing of cinemas, supermarkets. You know we have units on the ground inside the country, we havequick reaction units there. Sometimes the enemy carries outacts of terror against our people, we should read carefully whatcomrade Zondo said after the bombing at Amanzimtoti - here wasa commander of the MK unit feeling very, very angry and emotionally disturbed by the assassination of our comradesin Maseru and feeling that it was his duty as commander of anMK unit to respond. Of course in his response he chose a centrein Amanzimtoti and in the course of the bomb-blast the so-calledcivilians are caught in the process." QUESTION:: There is a reference to "so-called civilians",can you remember this bombing attack, were there any innocentpeople who died in this attack? ANSWER:: Indeed such people died. QUESTION:: Please read the next paragraph. "We are going to come increasingly across a situation wherethe comrades, in anger, are going to react and deal with whitecivilians. That is not the policy of the ANC. One must rememberthat we are in a state of war." QUESTION:: Please let me stop you there. Does this confirmyour testimony here with regard to the state of affairs then? QUESTION:: Does this confirm that from the point of viewof the ANC and the liberation movement it was also their pointof view that it was a state of war? QUESTION:: Could you continue, begin with "The ANCis clear..." in the middle of the second paragraph. "I must repeat its position we want to deal with the enemypersonnel, the police, the army with the administration of the enemy, with the economic installations,with farms and farmers but in the process people are going toget angry and I think the world in general, and especially thewhites in SA, must reckon with the fact that the Botha regimesolely is responsible for this sort of situation. We are notauthors of the situation and increasingly as we confront the enemy,as we deal with the enemy personnel, more and more white civiliansare going to be caught in the cross-fire. I want to repeat thatwe are not responsible for this situation, we shall try as muchas possible to avoid civilian casualties, we are not a terroristmovement, we abhor terrorism. We are a revolutionary movement." QUESTION:: What is said here, while one can understandwhat is being said with regard to innocent civilians, would yourimpression during that time have been that there were attackson military installations, on the homes of police officers andagainst the personnel of the military and the police. Were theresuch attacks? ANSWER:: Yes as well as attacks against civilians. QUESTION:: That would have been my next question, whatwould your impression have been with regard to attacks againstinnocent civilians? ANSWER:: Innocent civilians did not fight in this war,I believe that this was entirely unacceptable to act in this manner. QUESTION:: Could you out of your own personal knowledgeremember any such attacks on innocent civilians, such as the ChurchStreet bomb? ANSWER:: I remember the Church Street bomb. The bombingin McGoo's bar. QUESTION:: We will come to some statistics, I'm askingyou in general. Mr Chairman it is close to 4 o'clock. I haveon this aspect and I think it is necessary for me to deal withthis aspect here in cross-examination(?), I will deal with itmore fully in argument unless you say to me that I should notdeal with it in much further in re-examination and only deal withit in argument. There are a few documents which I want to askBrigadier Cronje about but I don't want to lengthen the proceedingsunnecessarily. CHAIRMAN:: I do not know whether you consider the Brigadier'sopinion to be of great importance on the contents of this documentor similar documents? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, the only point I'm tryingto make in re-examination is Brigadier Cronje was attacked aboutthe fact that he stated in his evidence that there was a war situation. What I'm trying to show and what he's trying to show in hisevidence, and I will proceed unless the Committee stops me todo that, is that from the view of not only the security forcesbut from the view of the liberation movements themselves, therewas a war situation in this country and that is what we are tryingto show. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Mr Du Plessis I personally don't see whetherhanding in this document for us to read only, or let me put itthe other way, I don't know whether this document acquires moreevidential value simply because the witness is reading it to us. I don't see any evidential value added purely as, simply becausethe witness is reading to us. JUDGE NGCOBE:: On the other hand you may be wanting totake the witness through the document to certain portions to invitehis comments, in other words for him to underpin certain portionsof the document, but really just to read it right throughout intothe record I don't see what evidential value it acquires. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, Mr Chairman the intention was toask him his comment on specific parts of the document. MR CURRAN:: Mr Chairman it seems as if it's possible thatMr Du Plessis has misunderstood aspects of the questions thatwere put to the Brigadier. After the break, the very first statementthat was made by us as that it's common cause that the ANC andliberation movements waged an armed liberation struggle so we'renot for one moment contesting the fact that the ANC waged an armedliberation struggle. That was not the context of any challengethat we put to the Brigadier, it just really related to the responsein the war that was waged in response to the ANC's war. We arenot denying that the ANC waged a war. CHAIRMAN:: That is how I understood Mr Curran's approach,to say to the Brigadier whether the reaction of the police unitswas not a reaction to a war and was that not a declaration ofwar by themselves. I think we all of us know sufficiently whatthe liberation movement, the struggle of the liberation movementsand so on, so I do not think it necessary to burden the recordof these proceedings on what the liberation movement was all about. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes. Mr Chairman the only point I wantto make clear at this stage, and I know Mr Curran after the breakasked the question in a much different vein than the questionhe asked before the break. Before the break he'd asked the question,he formulated the question as saying to Brigadier Cronje that the police waged a war on the people inthe black townships. I feel dutybound to deal with this issueand to bring it under the Committee's attention that the factthat his evidence is that there was a war going on in this countryis confirmed by various people involved in the struggle. I havemade that point, I don't want to belabour that point. If theCommittee feels that I have made that point with the evidencethat I have presented now, I will deal with the other informationthat I have in my possession in argument. CHAIRMAN:: The ANC's representations to the TRC woulditself reflect that the ANC had been engaged in a liberation struggleand an elaborate account of the nature and extent of that struggle. MR DU PLESSIS:: That's the point I wanted to make Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: I don't think we need traverse all that ground. MR DE JAGER:: Could I ask counsel, if you agree on a certaindocument, the document itself can't be disputed, can't you agreeto hand in the document by agreement and not to read out everysentence because we'll never finish, we'll read books here andit could be handed in by agreement. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman yes, with respect that iswhy I posed this question now because I wanted Brigadier Cronjeto raise the points he raised and to read to the Committee specificallyin his own words what he read to the Committee now. JUDGE WILSON:: They were not his own words, that's preciselythe problem. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, well Mr Chairman I wanted him toread that to the Committee so that he could answer in re examination the question. I won't deal with this issue furtherI think he has answered the questions sufficiently and I willdeal with it in argument again at the end. Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: We will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman, before the adjournment and MrChairman will pardon me for doing it in this fashion, I just wantto announce Mr Chairman to the Committee members and everybodyhere present, the matters that we are going to deal with tomorrowand in that sequence. Thereafter I want my colleagues to confirmthat, this was discussed with them by myself. The first oneMr Chairman tomorrow will be the killing of Pete Mtuli, the 5thfrom the bottom, Pete Mtuli followed by the Qwandabela 9 killing,that's 7th from below, Qwandabela 9, followed by Nietverdient,the first one after the title "matters to be dealt with atPretoria hearings". Mr Chairman I further want to put iton record that inasfar as people that are implicated are concernedMr Chairman, I have sent out notification to those people affectedin all the three matters but at this moment I have not as yetreceived the return of services from the investigative units,they may be able to do that tonight to me or tomorrow morning. The people that I highlighted on the document before the Chairman,the forms have been issued yesterday to them. JUDGE WILSON:: Are they all the people who were mentionedin the application, not just one or two? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I did not issue the notificationto all the people, I selected certain people whom I thought weremore salient to the actions or the acts. Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Very well, we'll adjourn now until 9:30 tomorrowmorning. MR MPSHE:: As arranged yesterday, the first matter tobe dealt with is that of the killing of Pete Ntuli, followed bythe two others Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I am ready, the applicantsare ready but the legal representative, Advocate Theunis Bothafrom Pretoria Bar has not yet arrived. I have enquired withthe client who informed me this morning that they are on theirway because I asked her to phone him yesterday, which thing shedid. I don't know what the position is going to be Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Has he placed himself on record as counsel? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman he has not, he has not. MR MPSHE:: For Pete Ntuli, Mr Chairman the Pete Ntulirelatives of victims Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, Mr Curran is not involved in that is it? MR MPSHE:: Mr Curran is not involved. CHAIRMAN:: Yes. My brother Judge Wilson saysthat he has some questions to put to the last witness and maybein the meantime we hope that counsel will arrive. JUDGE WILSON:: There is a very large constant bangingnoise in my earphones. INTERPRETER:: It is possible that someone's microphoneis on and that they are touching it which might cause that, butthe technical staff would have to check that for us, I'm not surehow to handle that. QUESTION:: I understood from your evidence yesterday thatthe local committee for the Northern Transvaal only targeted oneperson, is that so? ANSWER:: That is the case Chair. QUESTION:: You went on to tell us that you gave Hechtergeneral instructions, which included authority to target and killpeople, is that so? ANSWER:: I cannot hear clearly M'Lord, that is correctyes. QUESTION:: You went on to say but in most cases he woulddiscuss it with you unless there was no time to do so, is thatcorrect? ANSWER:: Would you mean with regard to Hechter if theydid not have time to talk to me, is that what you mean? QUESTION:: Yes, but if they had time you expected themto discuss it with you? ANSWER:: If there was sufficient time, indeed. QUESTION:: Because you have told us it was only in verylimited incidents, only in one incident that you and the NorthernTransvaal targeted anyone? QUESTION:: Did you hear the question? QUESTION:: You would expect them to discuss it with youbecause it was only in very limited cases that you targeted anyonein the Northern Transvaal. You said you only did so in one case,one incident. Is that correct? ANSWER:: That's with regard to Trevits, Chair. QUESTION:: ...sub-committee which you were on for theNorthern Transvaal only targeted one person. ANSWER:: Indeed, but everyone was interrogated and waseliminated were not targeted by Trevits. QUESTION:: Did you eliminate everybody you questioned,you interrogated? ANSWER:: No I don't believe so. QUESTION:: Because you also said that underlings, which would have been Hechter, would have to discuss with you the questionof targeting people, eliminating people, once again subject totime restraints. That is so isn't it? ANSWER:: That was normally the case. QUESTION:: You also told us that guidelines were laiddown which were adhered to, that children and innocent peoplewere not to be targets? QUESTION:: So does that mean that you would not throwa bomb into a house where you knew a man was with his wife andyoung children? ANSWER:: If we knew this, we would not have done so. QUESTION:: Yes, and you would not kill someone merelybecause they happen to be a relation of a target? QUESTION:: One other point I wish to raise, it was donethrough you so I'll come back through you, this long documentyou read from yesterday, Exhibit M, have you still got a copyof it? QUESTION:: Could he be given a copy? I take it thatwhat you read yesterday was what Chris Hani is supposed to havesaid on behalf of the South African Communist Party, the ANC andUmkhonto we Sizwe? QUESTION:: If you look at page 58, in the third paragraphhe said "In Kwandabele where there was a militant mass movementagainst independents, the intervention of Umkhonto led to theelimination of the most notorious of the collaboration elements,Pete Ntuli. The elimination of Pete Ntuli by an MK unit galvanisedthe population in Kwandabele." ANSWER:: No, what is written here cannot be the truth. (Long silence with high-pitched wail coming from microphone) CHAIRMAN:: In respect of your participation, just yourparticipation, certain names have been mentioned of people whomight be involved directly or indirectly in some of the offencesfor which you are seeking amnesty. If it is possible, I wouldlike to take down the names of those individuals who are not appearingat this hearing who, in your opinion and in your evidence, werepeople who would be directly or indirectly involved. Would itbe possible for you to give me those names please? CHAIRMAN:: May I have them please? ANSWER:: Is this with regard to the Pete Ntuli case? CHAIRMAN:: ...which he himself is involved. ANSWER:: Mr Chairman what I would volunteer to do is tocompile a list for you if that would be convenient. We can provideyou with a list of names. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you very much. I have no further questions,thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON AND CHAIRMAN MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, may I in respect of the questionsasked by His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson perhaps re-examinethe witness if I'm allowed to? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier Cronje,did you, with regard to every meeting with regard to Trevits inthe Northern Transvaal, in every meeting of those, did you havesitting? QUESTION:: Could you briefly make more clear your involvementin that particular committee of Trevits? ANSWER:: Would this be with regard to my sitting? ANSWER:: Yes, your sitting in Trevits when were you involvedand how were you involved in Trevits? ANSWER:: If we had identified a target we would have discussedthis at Trevits, we would have made representations to Trevits. QUESTION:: Then would it have been possible that othertargets might have been identified at Trevits meetings where youwere not present? QUESTION:: So where you gave testimony that the only targetidentified, who would have been Pete Ntuli, would that imply thatthat was the only target ever identified by that Trevits committeethat you knew of? QUESTION:: And where you were involved? JUDGE WILSON:: Does that mean if your group wanted totarget, they would do it through you to Trevits? ANSWER:: No Your Honour, the other incidents were donebecause of the instruction I received from Brigadier Victor. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: The intention was that targets where you wereinvolved with, where you made a presentation to Trevits with regard to a particular person, that was the extent of your participationin Trevits? QUESTION:: Would you have been involved in Trevits ifother Commanding Officers for instance, or some other person fromsome other unit or section made presentations to Trevits, wouldyou have been involved in that discussion and identification ofthat target? QUESTION:: Could I get some further clarity in this regard,the elimination of Mr Sefola for instance would that have beenidentified by yourself or by your unit and then presented to Trevitsand confirmed by them or how did it work? ANSWER:: No, that did not happen, that happened becauseof the general instruction we received from Brigadier Victor tobecome actively engaged in the war. QUESTION:: Brigadier then that would not have been consideredor rather would it have been considered as a rule that all eliminationshad to go through Trevits? QUESTION:: In instances where there were eliminationsby your staff, under which instructions would those eliminationshave occurred? ANSWER:: The eliminations would have been due to Victor'sinstructions. MS KHAMPEPE:: Can we therefore understand your evidenceto state that apart from Trevits, there was also a parallel structurethrough which you identified targets on the instructions of, thegeneral instructions received from Brigadier Victor? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier Cronje to what extent would you havedealt only with high profile activists at Trevits? ANSWER:: We would only have dealt with high profile activistsat Trevits not with other activists. QUESTION:: If your subordinates were to be involved inelimination actions such as in the case of Makope and Sefola,which instructions would have been relevant to their actions? ANSWER:: Those would have been the instructions receivedfrom Victor. JUDGE WILSON:: Would you expect them to discuss them withyou if there was time? You would expect them to discuss thematter with you if there was time? ANSWER:: If there was sufficient time. JUDGE WILSON:: We know the first person disappeared on15 July, the second on 16 July and the third on 17 July, therewould seem to have been time wouldn't there? ANSWER:: I am not sure whether I had been in my officeor what the circumstances might have been. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, with regard to this particular incident,you've heard the testimony of Captain Hechter and W/O Van Vuurenwith regard to their activities, the interrogation and the processwhich they followed. Would you have considered that beyond thenormal circumstances or would you have considered these actionsas normal activities to act in that manner and then report backto you? ANSWER:: This would have been normal procedure. QUESTION:: Would you have required of them in the middleof the process of interrogation of these activists in which one interrogationthen followed the other, would you have required them to reportback to you in the middle of the process? ANSWER:: Were I available they would have reported tome. QUESTION:: Can you remember whether they reported to you? ANSWER:: No I cannot remember. QUESTION:: You have given testimony that you cannot rememberwhether you were available. ANSWER:: No, that is the case. JUDGE WILSON:: If you were not there, there would be someoneelse occupying the command position would there not? ANSWER:: My second-in-command would have been available,Colonel Ras, I do not know whether they discussed this with him. MS KHAMPEPE:: Trevits dealt with only high profile activistsand these would have been activists who were considered by Trevitsas a political threat to the government of the day isn't it? Do you want me to repeat my question? MS KHAMPEPE:: Trevits only dealt with high profile activists,and these would have been activists considered by Trevits to bea political threat to the government of the day? CHAIRMAN:: Any other questions under re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier Cronje you were also asked with regardto innocent persons or rather persons who might have also havebeen affected in the course of an operation, a particular operation, could you explain to the Committee if, duringthe course of an operation, what the approach would have been. I am thinking particularly with regard to the Nyanda event,we will still get to the Nyanda incident, but the modus operandiwith regard to persons in the course of your operations couldyou expand on this somewhat? Brigadier, the question that wasasked to you had been with regard to family members in a house,what would have happened to family members in a house in the courseof an operation, you then said that the target would not havebeen to affect family members in a house? Then particularlywith regard to the Nyanda incident, without giving testimony aboutthat particular incident could you not however sketch the broadapproach how you acted towards people during the course of anoperation? ANSWER:: If it was at all possible we would have attemptednot to cause harm to women and children. We attempted to determineprior to an action whether there were family members, childrenin the house then we would not have continued with the operation. QUESTION:: Brigadier, would there have been unavoidableincidents where people by accident and in a way in which you couldnot prevent would have come under fire? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON:: One last point arising from that, you would,you say, take all possible attempts not to cause harm and to ascertainif there were other people in a house? CHAIRMAN:: Yes, thank you very much. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I have received a message hereabout, concerning my colleague Advocate Botha. May I be affordedjust some small opportunity to talk to somebody to sort out thingsso that we know what we are about to do? CHAIRMAN:: We will just adjourn for a very short while. COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we areindebted to the Chair and the Committee for the short adjournment. Mr Chairman I contacted Mr Theuns Botha who told me that heis not briefed in this matter and that is why he is not here. He advised me to contact the firm of attorneys who had initiallycontacted him, that is the firm Kamber, De Beer & Goosen and I contacted this firm by telephoneand I spoke to the secretary, Ms Ria Pretorius, who told me thatthe person in charge of this matter is a Mr Goosen Jnr of thesame firm. Mr Goosen Jnr is not available, he's writing examinationsand she said to me there's no (indistinct) present in the firmat the moment. I explained to her what is happening and I askedher pertinently I said are you still representing the victims,she said as far as I know we are still representing them. I saidcan I convey this to the Committee members that your firm is stillrepresenting, she said yes you can convey that. Now that iswhere we stop Mr Chairman I will leave this to the decision ofthe Committee. CHAIRMAN:: I regard that as shabby treatment of everybodythat is involved in this hearing, if that firm had difficultiesit could have come here and placed their difficulties on the recordand asked to be excused if they could not attend to this matter. I have no comments to make as far as counsel himself is concerned, obviously whetherhe was briefed or not is a matter for the attorneys to decide. In the circumstances, are the members of the family presentMr Mpshe and have you spoken to them? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman the members of the family are present,I haven't spoken to them because I thought that they were representedall the time. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Mpshe on previous occasions you have fulfilledthe functions, after consultation with dependents and relativesand adduced evidence on their behalf if they were unable to doso. It does seem that we may have to resort to that and youmust do the best you can, so now can we then commence with theleading of the evidence which might take us perhaps at least untilthe adjournment and then you can take time to consult with thewitnesses and perhaps prepare yourself to lead evidence on theirbehalf when the need arises. You may even have to consult themafter the first witness has given evidence but then you wouldexercise your experience and judgment in the matter, Mr Mpshe. You will not be prevented from calling any witness after youhave received instructions and it becomes necessary to put questionsto somebody. I'd rather that we proceed on that basis insteadof waiting for attorneys to turn up and so on. MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: We are indebted to you if you can do that. MR MPSHE:: That I can do Mr Chairman. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. I call BrigadierCronje back. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Mpshe you've given notice I see six,seven people in this matter round about, but did you give notice tothe person who supplied bond, Joe Verster? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I don't have my copy with me butI can check on that later. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, I think we can attend to that matter ata later stage, let us proceed with the evidence. MR DE JAGER:: Have you received any returns of service? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, as Iindicated yesterday that the forms are out, I have not receivedany returns. This morning at 6:15 I telephoned Adv Andrew Steenkampto find out what has he done so far and that I need returns, andhe said they are still busy but there are others that they haveserved and he will meet me here this morning. He has not arrived. (End of side 1).. QUESTION:: You will find it on page 113 of Brigadier Cronje'sapplication Mr Chairman, 113. Mr Chairman I just want to applyfor the inclusion of two other Acts on page 112 just to be safeMr Chairman please, arson and possession of illegal explosives. Brigadier Cronje on page 113 your application begins, couldyou tell the Committee with regard to your statement here whatyour involvement had been with the death of Pete Ntuli? ANSWER:: Mr Chair the Mbkhoto was a movement in Kwandabeleof which Pete Ntuli was the leader. The ANC attempted to destabiliseKwandabele, this occurred by means of the burning down of housesand schools as well as boycotts and school boycotts. I receivedinstructions to eliminate Pete Ntuli since he was destabilisingthe area in Kwandabele and in effect advanced the purposes ofthe ANC. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you stop there, you don't needto read the next section it has to do with Trevits and we've hadsufficient evidence in that regard. Could you possibly expandon your instructions, can you remember who gave you the instructionsand if you cannot remember could you tell the Committee or couldyou sketch for the Committee the possibilities as you see thistoday who might have been the source of these instructions? ANSWER:: I'm not entirely sure how this came about butthe most likely is that I would have made presentation to Trevitsmyself or that I did so in co-operation with Special Forces. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you continue at the final paragraph? ANSWER:: The information to us was that Ntuli was involvedin a variety of unrest incitements, murder, arson, unrest, seriousassaults, tortures, intimidation, theft, the illegal possessionof firearms and consumer boycotts. He planned the consumer boycottsso that he would walk into a place and he would simply close theshop. He would cut off the electrical supply to the populationor even the water supplies to the population. It was thereforenecessary to achieve stability in the area and to counter theANC's plan of destabilisation to eliminate Ntuli. Pete Ntuli'scase had been discussed at several (indistinct) at the Joint InformationCentre which was a sub-section of the Joint Management Systemwhich consisted only of the police, military intelligence, thearmy itself, only the intelligence community as such were involvedin this Joint Information Centre. All the security informationavailable had been discussed, as well as all the incidents and possible actions were discussed. The decisions then made werereferred to the State Security Council who then took the finaldecision. QUESTION:: A moment, you are saying that this was discussed,were you personally present? ANSWER:: I had sitting on this Joint Information Centre,I was personally present. It is possible that the decision withregard to Pete Ntuli would have been taken in the Joint InformationCentre and that it would have been confirmed by the State SecurityCouncil via Trevits. I made several recommendations that PeteNtuli should have been detained under security legislation butI was told time and again that this was not possible since MinisterHeunis, at that time of Constitutional Development, was opposedto the detention. QUESTION:: We will return to this particular matter withregard to which I will question you. Brigadier, Dantjie VanWyk at that time in 86 was in charge of a special investigatingteam with regard to unrest in Kwandabele and working with himwere Sgt Gouws and W/O Oosthuizen, they investigated in particularthen the Mbkhoto incidents or incidents in which the Mbkhoto movementwere involved. CHAIRMAN:: What is this organisation, how do you spellit? MR DU PLESSIS:: I'm not with you Mr Chairman, which organisation? MR DU PLESSIS:: We're not sure if that is the correctspelling Mr Chairman, we're not 100% sure if that is right butthat's the way we thought it is spelt. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) ANSWER:: A specially built bomb was acquired from JoeVerster of Special Forces which was the run-up to the later BSB. There were particular preparations made with regard to the particularmodel of car which Pete Ntuli drove in, which is a Toyota Cressida,so that it would have been possible to fit the bomb to the bottomof this vehicle. We co-operated with the SADF Special Forcesin terms of the general instructions given by Brigadier Schoon. Myself, Captain Hechter and Captain Jaap Van Jaarsveld wentwith the bomb to Kwandabele. Later in the afternoon, CaptainChris Kendall, the Branch Commanding Officer of this SecurityPolice in Bronkelspruit who was responsible for Kwandabele, alsoarrived. Gouws and Oosthuizen were attached to the Murder &Armed Robbery section of the South African Police which investigatedthe activities of the Mbkhoto in Kwandabele under Brigadier DantjieVan Wyk. We met Mr Oosthuizen and Gouws at Siabuswa(?), whichwas then the seat of the Kwandabele Government. We waited allday to see how we could attach the bomb to Pete Ntuli's vehicle. That particular evening there was a meeting at the house ofthe Chief Minister in the Ministerial complex in Kwandabele. There was an open piece of veld across from the Ministerial complexfrom where we watched the complex. When it had become dark,myself, Hechter and Captain Kendall drove to the complex in CaptainKendall's vehicle. We parked next to Pete Ntuli's vehicle andI sent Kendall to the Chief Minister to tell him that I wouldlike to meet with the Chief Minister, whom I had not met yet atthat time. While Kendall was in the house of the Chief Minister,Hechter sneaked underneath Ntuli's Cressida vehicle and mountedthe bomb. The Minister of Police, Mr Nglameni, then came out of the Chief Minister's house. I approached him and greetedhim and we had a conversation. After the bomb was planted underNtuli's vehicle, we returned in Kendall's vehicle. We then droveback to the open piece of veld in front of the main gates of theMinisterial complex. It was then agreed that Oosthuizen andGouws would handle the two distance detonators. These distance-controlleddetonators were set so that the bomb would explode in a distantpart of the road which Ntuli normally used. There was a mechanismto prevent that innocent persons would be hurt. The bomb wouldonly explode 30 seconds after the detonator had been set so thatthe bomb would explode in an unbuilt area, which indeed did happen. After the bomb exploded we drove out to the base of Gouws andOosthuizen which was about four kilometres from Siabuswa. Whenwe arrived at the base we received information from the policeradio with regard to the explosion and with Brigadier Van Wykand some of his staff, we returned to the scene of the explosion. The Commissioner of Police of Kwandabele, Brigadier Van Niekerk,also arrived at the scene. The next day I went to BrigadierCoetzee, the Commissioner's office, and the Kwandabele Governmentclaimed that I was responsible for the bomb. The matter was investigatedby the head of the Detective Services, General Schutte - the Chiefof CID I would presume. I was never questioned in this regard. I had to hand in a report and I was not involved in the legalinquest or gave testimony at the legal inquest. Special Forceswould initially have performed this operation with us, but inthe event we only received the bomb from Special Forces. Mbkhotoacted in a similar manner to the ANC and attempted to destabilisethe area in a manner similar to that of the ANC. This occurred by means of burning down housesand schools and by means of consumer and school boycotts. ThenMbkhoto and the ANC had the same purposes, namely political unrest,murder, assault and destabilisation. Shops were closed, waterand lights were cut off. We received information that Pete Ntuliand his Mbkhoto on one particular evening burned down a houseand that two children came out of the house and that Pete Ntulithrew the children back into the fire. This case was investigated,with no consequences. We received information that Pete Ntuliand the Mbkhoto's intentions were to make Kwandabele ungovernableand to make the existing Government ineffective and to destabiliseKwandabele. The Mbkhoto of Pete Ntuli had the same destabilisingeffect in Kwandabele as the ANC. In effect the Mbkhoto achievedthe purposes of the ANC with regard to the destabilisation ofKwandabele. QUESTION:: For a moment Brigadier for further claritycould you explain to the Committee whether you knew or whetheryou could remember with what purpose the Mbkhoto were founded? ANSWER:: The Mbkhoto were founded with the purpose ofassisting the Government of Kwandabele towards the purpose ofindependence. QUESTION:: With regard to the deeds of the Mbkhoto, didthey achieve this purpose? ANSWER:: No in their actions they acted against the Governmentof Kwandabele and they did exactly what the ANC did. QUESTION:: Could we then return to your testimony at thelast paragraph on page 118? ANSWER:: Pete Ntuli's activities was therefore aimed,by means of the activities of the Mbkhoto, against the then Governmentof Kwandabele and advanced the purposes of the ANC in the processof destabilisation. The Government of Kwandabele at that timeserved the purposes or had a positive attitude towards the SouthAfrican Government. The Mbkhoto worked against the politicalpurposes of the Government. I may mention that if there wasno peace in Qwandebele they would not have achieved independenceand Pete Ntuli must have known this. His elimination would haveadvanced the independence of Kwandabele. I want to mention inaddition that I was convinced in my heart, with information availableto me, that Pete Ntuli was in fact a double agent who gave theimpression that he worked for the South African Government butthat in fact his activities were the very opposite of that. I also ascertained that the brother of Pete Ntuli, (whose namethe interpreter could not hear) who was a Warrant Officer in theCar Theft Unit in Springs, that Pete Ntuli was accused of armedrobbery, that he was found guilty and in fact sentenced to deathand that during the course of the court case there had been testimonywhich was robbed was used to fund the ANC. This confirmed mysuspicion that Pete Ntuli was in fact working for the ANC. QUESTION:: Brigadier let's return to certain aspects withregard to which you have given testimony. Can you remember whatthe position of the Kwandabele Government had been with regardto independence? ANSWER:: The Kwandabele Government supported the notionof independence for Kwandabele. QUESTION:: Were they supported by the South African Government? ANSWER:: Yes they were supported by the South AfricanGovernment. QUESTION:: Was Pete Ntuli a Minister? ANSWER:: He was the Minister of Home Affairs of the KwandabeleGovernment at that time. QUESTION:: Can you remember what the attitude had beenof the population of Kwandabele with regard to independence? ANSWER:: The people of Kwandabele were entirely opposedto independence. QUESTION:: Would you know why they were opposed? ANSWER:: They were opposed because of the acts of theUDF and the ANC. QUESTION:: Brigadier, the independence of Kwandabele wouldthat have been part of the apartheid policy of the South AfricanGovernment? ANSWER:: Indeed. In addition they wanted independencebecause the idea would have been that if there were to be votesin the future then the people of Kwandabele would not be ableto vote in South Africa. QUESTION:: Can you remember, there has been testimonyin this regard, but just elaborate on this again, what would havebeen the state of unrest in Kwandabele from about 1984? ANSWER:: There had been serious unrest in Kwandabele from1984. QUESTION:: You have also given testimony that the Mbkhotowere founded with the apparent purpose of supporting the KwandabeleGovernment with the purpose of achieving the independence of Kwandabele,is that the case? QUESTION:: Again to elaborate on your testimony with regardto the Mbkhoto, although this was the purpose of their founding, what exactly did the Mbkhoto do and to what extent didthey deviate from this initial purpose? ANSWER:: They entirely deviated from the original purposeof founding, they became Pete Ntuli's political force, they committedarson and murder and arranged consumer and school boycotts. In a particular case Pete Ntuli, with the Mbkhoto, entered a schoolwhich was quite calm at the time and where the people were goingto school, Ntuli hit and drove the teachers in the children outof the school with sjamboks and knopkieries. QUESTION:: To what extent did they Mbkhoto, of whom PeteNtuli was the leader, operate in a manner similar to that of theANC and the UDF in that area? ANSWER:: They operated in exactly the same manner as theANC. QUESTION:: What effect did their activities have on theSouth African and Kwandabele Governments' efforts to advance independencefor Kwandabele? ANSWER:: It put a spoke in the wheels entirely for theprocess of independence because it was not possible to grant independenceif the area was entirely destabilised, they therefore worked entirelyin opposition to the political purposes of the Government. QUESTION:: Brigadier, you have given testimony that yourequested that Ntuli be arrested and that Minister Heunis wouldnot allow this. Can you explain this or could you think whatthe explanation might have been? ANSWER:: Pete Ntuli was probably a thorn in the fleshof the South African Government and they lost control over him entirely. It was not possible to arrest him or to detain himsince the South African Government, to use the English word would have been the world's laughing-stock. The Cabinetof Kwandabele would have lost all trust in the South African Governmentsince the South African Government would then have locked up oneof their Ministers. QUESTION:: Did the South African Government support theKwandabele Government of that time, was the South African Governmentin support of the then Kwandabele Government? QUESTION:: Can you remember whether the South AfricanGovernment at that time, not regarding your information, but didthey consider Pete Ntuli to be someone apparently on their side? ANSWER:: They did indeed, they considered Pete Ntuli tobe on their side and he also gave that image. QUESTION:: Did they also propagate(?) him as being oneof their supporters? QUESTION:: If I understand your testimony, it would havebeen an embarrassment for them under such circumstances to arresthim? ANSWER:: Indeed, a serious embarrassment. QUESTION:: Brigadier you have also given testimony thatNtuli however in fact did the opposite to what the South AfricanGovernment wanted and in fact did the same as the ANC at thattime. You referred to information available to you that he wasin fact a supporter of the ANC, could you elaborate on the sourceof this information? ANSWER:: This information came from informants and ofcourse it was apparent from his activities by means of the Mbkhoto. QUESTION:: Brigadier, the action then taken to eliminate Pete Ntuli, was that the only possible action against him? ANSWER:: This would have been the only possible actionagainst him since if we were to detain him, it would have beena considerable embarrassment for the Government of the day. QUESTION:: Would his elimination have benefitted the SouthAfrican and Kwandabele Governments at that time? ANSWER:: It would indeed have been to their benefit sincethe region would then have been able to follow the normal courseof events and it would have been stabilised. QUESTION:: If the area were to be stabilised, would itthen have been easier to achieve independence? QUESTION:: Why would you claim thus? ANSWER:: We would then have been able, in the absenceof Pete Ntuli, to convince the population to accept independence. JUDGE WILSON:: When did they do so, when did they acceptindependence? ANSWER:: I don't know the date Your Honour. MR ?:: Kwandabele never accepted independence. MR ?:: That's according to my facts as well, the position,yes. JUDGE WILSON:: So you say if you removed him you wouldhave been able to persuade them to accept independence, but itnever happened, so that reason is totally invalid. ANSWER:: At that time I was unaware of the fact that theywould not accept independence and in addition the Commissionerin Kwandabele, Brigadier Van Niekerk, was replaced by a differentBrigadier, Brigadier Hertzog Lerm and Lerm took the Mbkhoto andmade them special constables and he then just continued where Ntuli had ended his activities,but he did it for different purposes, he did it for his own financialgain. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Would this have then caused additional problemswith regard to independence for the Government? ANSWER:: Indeed, to such an extent that Brigadier Lermat a later stage was forced to retire as medically unfit. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Isn't it so that Kwandabele very nearlybecame independent, they had taken certain advanced steps towardsindependence, for example they had already built a Supreme Court,a building which was supposed to be a Supreme Court? ANSWER:: That is in fact the case Chair. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Although they didn't really become independent,they were already well on the way to becoming independent? MS KHAMPEPE:: A date had already been set down for thesaid independence of Kwandabele some time in 86, was Trevits awareof that? ANSWER:: I cannot remember whether I was aware of it. MS KHAMPEPE:: Were you aware that the whole populationof Kwandabele was completely opposed to the idea and the notionof independence? MS KHAMPEPE:: So in fact, having to remove Pete Ntuliwho was a leader of Mbkhoto, would not have really addressed yourproblems? ANSWER:: It would have solved the problem in this way,namely that we would then not have had to deal in addition with Pete Ntuli and his Mbkhoto, we would only have had to payattention to the ANC and the UDF and we would then be able toact against them and in that way we hoped to be able to persuadethe population to accept independence. MS KHAMPEPE:: Are you saying that there was an activepresence of the ANC and the UDF at Kwandabele? EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier do you know whether the so-called"comrades" were active in Kwandabele? ANSWER:: They were active in Kwandabele. QUESTION:: Brigadier, if the destabilising effect of theMbkhoto were to be neutralised by the elimination of their leaderPete Ntuli, would it have been your view at that time that thiswould have eased the steps to independence? ANSWER:: Indeed because then the Mbkhoto would have beenwithout a leader. QUESTION:: To just make it entirely clear, when BrigadierLerm took over, exactly what did he do, could you make this quiteclear to the Committee? ANSWER:: He continued with arson, school boycotts, theadvancing of consumer boycotts and similar actions with the Mbkhoto. QUESTION:: Would you say that he acted beyond his policeactivities? ANSWER:: Certainly beyond his task as a police officer. QUESTION:: Did this cause a problem for the South Africanand Kwandabele Governments? ANSWER:: Indeed, to such an extent that he was forcedto retire. QUESTION:: Brigadier, to continue on page... ANSWER:: I don't know exactly at what date he retiredChair. JUDGE WILSON:: What year, approximately can you say, howlong was he there? ANSWER:: He would probably have been there for about twoyears, but I cannot remember. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I know this is a strange wayof introducing evidence, but my instructions are that part ofthe reason why he was transferred and why he went out of the forcewas as a result of the Parson's Commission and the report of theParson's Commission in respect of what happened at Kwandabele. The one date that my one client has mentioned here is 1988,but that's an unverified date. JUDGE NGCOBE:: The Parson's Commission in fact found thathe had acted irregularly in many respects, Brigadier Lerm. ANSWER:: That is the case, he was also charged to appearbefore that Commission. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, just to make it entirely clear,you retired in 1987? ANSWER:: In June 1987 I had an operation, I stayed offsick until the end of 1987. QUESTION:: So you were no longer actively involved afterthat date and you would with difficulty be able to remember exactlysubsequent to that? ANSWER:: No, after that I have difficulty rememberingwhat occurred. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you page to page 247, I can'tbe serious my apologies, it's not 247 I want to refer you to page126 from the paragraph "in daardie tyd", that's thethird paragraph. ANSWER:: "In that time, the chief strategy of the ANCand PAC was to make the country, and in particular Kwandabele,ungovernable by means of unrest, arson, attacks with hand grenadesand other arms, public violence, school boycotts and strikes. Mr Pete Ntuli, with the assistance of an organisation knownas the Mbkhoto, acted in an intense and aggressive manner to participatein this process. Although Mr Ntuli was not known as an ANC supporterand although his organisation claimed to be opposed to the ANC,I had to take into account the following facts; Kwandabele wasturned into a boiling-pot of violence by ANC and PAC activists,their purpose was to make the country entirely ungovernable andthis purpose they largely achieved." MR ?:: Mr Du Plessis the particulars in this applicationwere confirmed under oath by the witnesses. What would yourview be, would these written materials be part of the applicationthat we have to act or must it all be repeated verbally? MR DU PLESSIS:: The reason why I draw attention to certainfactors Mr Chairman is the fact that in respect of each incidentafter the general motivation of eliminations etc., there comesa specific motivation in respect of that specific deed and thatis why I draw attention to that every time. In this instancehe has testified about that so, a final question, Judge Wilsonasked you a question, this was with regard to the ANC and a particularquote of Chris Hani which you read yesterday, in which he claimedthat an MK unit had been responsible for the death of Pete Ntuli. ANSWER:: We were aware of this claim by the ANC but ofcourse this suited us, we wanted to leave the impression thatthe ANC had been responsible for the death of Pete Ntuli and forthis particular incident. QUESTION:: It would have suited the purposes of the Governmentthat they did not have to eliminate their own man, or apparentlytheir own man? QUESTION:: Brigadier, there had never been any admissionon the part of the Government that you were responsible for thedeath of Pete Ntuli, is that correct? ANSWER:: That is indeed correct. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Brigadier, I think it was fairly known andobvious during that time that during the operation of Mbkhotothat Kwandabele was highly destabilised but isn't it so that ingoing about doing his business in the way that he was doing, PeteNtuli was in fact trying to strengthen the Kwandabele Governmentand drive it towards independence? ANSWER:: Mr Chair, Pete Ntuli with his Mbkhoto in actualfact did the ANC's work for it. He could not at that stage havebeen working for the Kwandabele Government. I felt, and it wasmy honest opinion, that Pete Ntuli was directly opposed to independenceand the Kwandabele Government. QUESTION:: If the media, if things which were reportedin the media about what he was doing, if those things were correct,there is no doubt that he was sowing havoc in Kwandabele. Thedestabilisation that he brought about didn't he do that unwittingly,it may be that he achieved precisely what, as you say the ANC would have wanted, namely destabilisation,but the way I understand Mr Ntuli's activities would be that heachieved in a rather unwitting manner destabilisation. Yourevidence tends to suggest that he deliberately wanted to achievethe same results as the ANC, do you understand my question? ANSWER:: Whether he intended it Mr Chair I don't know,but it definitely created the impression with me and the Governmentthat he was destabilising the whole area for his own purposes. QUESTION:: Now don't you deal differently with a personwho unwittingly, unwisely, foolishly, causes destabilisation asopposed to a person who like an ANC person deliberately bringsabout destabilisation? Why didn't you re-educate him or educatehim properly and call him in, he was on the South African Governmentand say to him don't do this because you see you achieve the resultsof the ANC, rather than eliminating him, this is the point I'mtrying to make? ANSWER:: Pete Ntuli was a member of Cabinet and it wouldcertainly have been the duty of Government to do that, I couldnot go and speak to Ntuli in that way. QUESTION:: But yes, you might have but would it not havebeen within your task to, as a solution, to suggest and say thatinstead of eliminating him let him be dealt with in this way? ANSWER:: That is why I suggested Pete Ntuli's detentionin accordance with security legislation, I wanted to withdrawhim from society in that way but Government did not want to dothat. I think in reports about his involvement and I certainlythought that if Government thought it necessary, they would havespoken to him about it. JUDGE WILSON:: I don't know as much about this man asmy Brothers on the Bench but do I understand from you that hewas regarded by the public as the South African Government's man? ANSWER:: He did give himself out to be that Mr Chair,he did pretend to be working for the Government. JUDGE WILSON:: He continued the violent actions, arson,school boycotts and what have you, giving out that he was workingfor the South African Government? ANSWER:: He did pretend that because he was in Cabinet,he definitely pretended that. JUDGE WILSON:: There's a difference isn't there betweenbeing a member of the Kwandabele Cabinet and working for the SouthAfrican Government? Did he pretend that he was more than merelya Cabinet Minister, that he had connections with the South AfricanGovernment? ANSWER:: Can I put it in this way, if a member of Cabinetof Kwandabele he was also working for the South African Government. MS KHAMPEPE:: Mr Cronje wasn't it common knowledge thatprominent members of Mbkhoto were in Government and consistedof prominent members of Parliament in Kwandabele? ANSWER:: I don't know anything about that. I know thatsome of the business people were members of Mbkhoto. CHAIRMAN:: The impression I got from your evidence wasthat at first Mbkhoto did appear to be an organisation that workedwell with the Government? ANSWER:: They were founded to work with the Governmentbut once they started working, they worked in a completely differentdirection than for which they were intended. They seem to havebeen hijacked and used for the opposite intention as that for which they were intended. MR ?:: The Cabinet of Kwandabele at that stage, was theCabinet for independence, but the population were against it. ANSWER:: Yes, that's the case. CHAIRMAN:: Would it be convenient if we took an adjournmentnow so that you might consult with members of the family beforeyou start questioning? CHAIRMAN:: Yes, we'll adjourn now and you will call usimmediately you are ready? COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION CHAIRMAN:: Mr Mpshe are you ready to proceed? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Mr Cronje did you know the membership of theMbkhoto, how many were there in that area? QUESTION:: Would you say it was a big political organisation? ANSWER:: I would suppose it was quite a large organisation. QUESTION:: Would you simulate(?) it to ANC and PAC? QUESTION:: Was there any link or any connection betweenMbkhoto and the ANC in Kwandabele? ANSWER:: Not as far as I know. QUESTION:: How do you come to link the activities of Mbkhotowith activities of the ANC in the area as you have indicated inyour application? ANSWER:: The process which they followed, the destabilisation which they caused, was similar to that of theANC, this was arson, murder, consumer boycotts, school boycottsetc. QUESTION:: How many school boycotts had Mbkhoto organisedand when? ANSWER:: I would not be able to say I don't have the numberof school boycotts. QUESTION:: Are you aware of any school boycotts that wereorganised by Mbkhoto? ANSWER:: There were such school boycotts that they arranged. QUESTION:: ...Mr Pete Ntuli involved in those school boycotts? ANSWER:: Whether he was personally involved or whetherhe gave instructions to the Mbkhoto I wouldn't be able to say. QUESTION:: ...about this bomb, how big was it, the massweight thereof? ANSWER:: I am not quite sure, Captain Hechter handledthe bomb, I didn't even see the bomb. QUESTION:: You were told that there was a bomb? ANSWER:: There was a bomb, it was in a bag, it was wrappedup in a bag so I didn't know the size of the bomb, I'm not anexplosive's expert. QUESTION:: ...say that this bomb as you know it was madewas designed to blow up that motor vehicle into pieces? ANSWER:: It was designed for that purpose. QUESTION:: To destroy everything? QUESTION:: I want you to have a look at a postmortem. CHAIRMAN:: I see you've marked it EXHIBIT N alreadyhave you? MR MPSHE:: That is Exhibit N Mr Chairman, members of theCommittee, thank you. Mr Chairman and members of the Committeethat postmortem report comes out of an inquest that was held inSiabuswa, Inquest No 20/1986. I have the inquest with me whichis an official document if the members of the Committee want tohave copies thereof later, I can make them available. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: I want you to have a look at page 2 of thatpostmortem report. Would you agree with me that the resultsas reflected on page 2 are commensurate with the type of a bombthat was designed as you have explained? QUESTION:: ...the Committee, the Exhibit N was HANDEDUP, I want to put it on record, by consent of all the parties. Brigadier can you tell us how this bomb was attached to the vehicle? ANSWER:: The bomb which was made was particularly designedfor the Toyota Cressida vehicle and would then have attached somewhereunderneath the driver's seat and would then have been fitted,I suppose with little clamps, but Captain Hechter would be ableto give you far clearer evidence in this regard. QUESTION:: On page 115, paragraph 2 of your application,you state that with regard to the design of the bomb to fit theToyota Cressida model? QUESTION:: Who made those special arrangements, who wasinvolved? ANSWER:: That was Special Forces who designed the bombfor us. QUESTION:: Who in particular was involved? ANSWER:: They had a technical section, I don't know whoexactly would have done it, but the bomb was provided by Joe Versterwho handed it to Captain Hechter. QUESTION:: You testified on page 117 that investigationwas then made but you were never questioned about this but yousubmitted a report, you say "ek het slegs 'n verslag ingedienso ver ek onthou". (No English translation given). ANSWER:: That is the case Chair. QUESTION:: ...the contents of your report were? ANSWER:: The contents of my report gave the reason formy presence, namely to visit the office of the Security Branchin Kwandabele to do an inspection at that office. That I hadvisited the home of the Chief Minister and that the reason thereforwas that I wanted to meet him personally just in general and thatI had general tasks to perform in Kwandabele. I made no referenceto the bomb in the report. QUESTION:: For whom was this report intended? ANSWER:: I handed the report to General Schutte who wasthe investigating officer in the inquest. QUESTION:: ...you made this report and submitted it toGeneral Schutte, you knew that the contents thereof were untrue? ANSWER:: The contents were not entirely untrue, I didin fact also visit my office there, but with regard to the bombcertainly it was untrue. QUESTION:: Seeing that General Schutte was investigatingand you knew as a police officer that he wants all informationabout what happened, why didn't you mention it? ANSWER:: Certainly they would then have charged me ifI mentioned that I had planted this bomb. QUESTION:: On page 118, the second paragraph, you statedthat "information was received that Pete Ntuli and the Mbkhotoacted with the intention of making Kwandabele ungovernable, withthe purpose of making the existing Government ineffective andto destabilise it." Did you believe in this information? ANSWER:: Certainly at that time I believed this informationthat Pete Ntuli did destabilise the area. QUESTION:: What in particular had Pete Ntuli done to bringabout this belief in you? ANSWER:: He was responsible for consumer boycotts, sayfor instance he would walk into a shop and tell the people toclose the shop down, that he would cut off their water and electricity. He was, therefore, in fact busy with the destabilisation ofthe area. CHAIRMAN:: You are really saying all this because theseare reports you'd received from somebody else about him walkinginto the shops, compelling shops to close down, this is informationsomebody else gave you, is that not so? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, you may have answered the questionI'm going to ask you, but bear with me if you have. Can youexplain if this man, Pete Ntuli, was a Cabinet Minister and hewas put there by the South African Government, why would he thenall of a sudden turn around against the very Government? ANSWER:: This is the case, he was placed there by theGovernment but his actions were of such a nature that the policyof apartheid of the then Government with regard to the independencewhich they wanted to achieve for Kwandabele, was entirely prevented by his purposes of destabilisation. QUESTION:: You answered a question earlier on that wasput to you about the people of Kwandabele not wanting independence,and you confirmed that. Do you remember? QUESTION:: Were there any other persons who were destabilisingthe Kwandabele against independence? QUESTION:: ...within the Mbkhoto? ANSWER:: Do you mean apart from the Mbkhoto and the ANC? QUESTION:: In the camp of Mbkhoto, apart from Pete Ntuli,who else was involved in this destabilisation that was known toyou? ANSWER:: I simply can't remember. QUESTION:: Brigadier, Pete Ntuli as you allege, was aleader of Mbkhoto which means he had followers and you(?) couldn'thave acted alone. ANSWER:: I have already said that the Mbkhoto assistedPete Ntuli but I would not know who the members were of the Mbkhoto,I simply would not be able to remember at this time. Pete Ntuliwas their leader. QUESTION:: Didn't you have information about the completeoperations and activities of Mbkhoto in that area? ANSWER:: Personally I did not have all the information,there had been a special investigative team under the commandof Brigadier Van Wyk who did investigate the Mbkhoto. QUESTION:: Did you verify his findings inasfar as theinvestigation is concerned for you to go and kill Ntuli? ANSWER:: We could not achieve much with this investigation, no one was charged out of this investigation. QUESTION:: You made mention of the fact - if I heard youcorrectly - that Pete Ntuli had caused the death of two childrenwho were thrown into a fire, do I recall you correctly? ANSWER:: That was information which we had received. The matter had been investigated by the investigative officers. I do not believe that anything came of the investigation. QUESTION:: Were you told again as to why nothing cameout of the investigation? ANSWER:: No I was not told, I do not know. QUESTION:: Can you tell this Committee when was Pete Ntulidetermined a target, is it before he could become a Cabinet Ministeror after when he was now in office? ANSWER:: It is after he had become a Cabinet Minister. MS KHAMPEPE:: When was that, when did he become a CabinetMinister? QUESTION:: Besides Pete Ntuli, were any other targetsdetermined by Trevits within Mbkhoto? QUESTION:: Brigadier, if I understood you well in yourpolitical objective, one of the aims was to eliminate and to intimidateactivists. Am I correct? QUESTION:: You have just told us that Pete Ntuli was aleader of Mbkhoto which turned against the Government and becamean activist and he had followers? ANSWER:: He did have followers. QUESTION:: Why was nothing done to the other members of Mbkhoto because you knew that they were there and they were active? ANSWER:: We presumed that if you cut off the head of thesnake then the body would be useless. QUESTION:: The useless body would be members of Mbkhoto who had the ability to continue with the political activities,not so? ANSWER:: In my testimony I did say that Brigadier Lermthen appointed these Mbkhoto members as police constables. QUESTION:: ...was the Kwandabele Government aware of theelimination of Pete Ntuli? ANSWER:: They were not aware of its planning. QUESTION:: Was the activities, the unwanted activitiesof Pete Ntuli by the National Party ever discussed with the Governmentof Kwandabele? QUESTION:: In your evidence Brigadier, you testified tothe effect that whilst when you were on the scene a certain memberof the Cabinet was seen walking towards you and you, no that isnot yourself that is another applicant. I withdraw that questionMr Chairman, sorry for that. Brigadier if you can just clarifyon this, let's start it this way is it not so that Kwandabele...(endof side 1)... ANSWER:: They did have a Government, there would havebeen a certain degree of self-government with the assistance ofthe South African Government. QUESTION:: Wouldn't you say that if there was anythingdone, assuming that Mbkhoto was still on the side of the KwandabeleGovernment, if Mbkhoto had gone out to kill and main other membersof political organisations, for example ANC or PAC, they wouldbe doing that in order to foster the political life in Kwandabele, would you agree with that? ANSWER:: I don't understand the question, could you repeatthe question please? QUESTION:: Let's suppose that Mbkhoto was still theresupporting the Kwandabele Government and if they had gone outto kill or to act against say members of the ANC within Kwandabele,they would be doing that with the aim of fostering the politicallife and the stability of the Kwandabele Government. Would thatbe correct? ANSWER:: I still don't understand the question. QUESTION:: I will put it the other way. MR DU PLESSIS:: Perhaps I can be of assistance and doit in Afrikaans if you would allow me? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I will have no problem with that. QUESTION (by Mr Du Plessis):: Brigadier, the effect ofthe question is that if the Mbkhoto didn't turn off the road,if they continued to support the Kwandabele Government and ifthey were then to go out and act against ANC activists, then infact they would have had and maintained the Kwandabele Government,is that the case? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Brigadier, if that is the case for whom wereyou precisely acting and for whose political objective were youacting? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, the question flowing fromthis, my learned friend says if that was the case, but the evidencewasn't that that was the case, it was a question on a supposition. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, I think you put a proposition to him,in other words you put to him that if members of Mbkhoto themselves, as part of their own agenda, attacked ANC supportersand eliminated them, would that not advance the cause of the SouthAfrican Government. Was that not the purpose of your question? MR MPSHE:: That was the purpose of the question Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Well flowing out of that, I can't imagine himsaying no to that. Do you understand the question as I haveput it? If Mbkhoto, for reasons of their own, attacked ANC supportersand eliminated them that would be in the interest of the SouthAfrican Government would it not? ANSWER:: Yes it would in addition have done so. CHAIRMAN:: What is your question? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman just a little bit of a correction,with respect, that would be in the interests of the KwandabeleGovernment not the South African. CHAIRMAN:: No, I put to him that it would be in the interestof the South African Government. If you want to know whetherit would be in the interest of the Kwandabele Government, putit to him. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Would the behaviour, the activities of theMbkhoto have been in the interests of the Kwandabele Government? ANSWER:: If they did what, if they killed ANC activists,yes it would have. QUESTION:: Brigadier, are you a member of any politicalorganisation or party? ANSWER:: I have never been a member, I did vote for theNational Party, I no longer vote for them. QUESTION:: At that time did you support the policies ofthe QUESTION:: Did you believe what the National Party waspreaching then? QUESTION:: Brigadier, between the ANC and Mbkhoto in thearea, which one was the most powerful and more problematic? ANSWER:: This is difficult to say, I think it would havebeen the ANC. QUESTION:: ...then at the time in the Kwandabele Government? ANSWER:: I'm not sure whether the Kwandabele Governmentdid anything against the ANC, but the South African Governmentdid have a military presence and a very strong police presencewith the exact intention of (indistinct) the acts of the ANC. QUESTION:: Brigadier, was anything done by Trevits orby the Security Unit against the ANC in Kwandabele as targets? ANSWER:: Not as targets, I'm not sure about any particularTrevits' targets identified there, but the comrades and otherswho destabilised the area would certainly have been arrested,were brought to court, in this regard they did therefor counterthe ANC. QUESTION:: Some members of the ANC were arrested and broughtto court within Kwandabele, is that what you are saying? QUESTION:: I find it quite strange Brigadier for you tosay this because in quite a number of applications and in yourapplication as well, when you were asked a question yesterdayor the other day about another route which you would have followed other than killing, they you said the killingwas the only thing because if people were arrested and detainedthen you would not be able to preserve the information that yougot out of them and the informers would be exposed. Why wasthis an exception in Kwandabele? ANSWER:: I also said that these were high profile persons,people for instance involved in school boycotts were not in thiscategory. QUESTION:: Did you know Mr Pete Ntuli personally? QUESTION:: Have you ever seen him before? ANSWER:: Yes I did see him, I knew what he looked like. QUESTION:: What would you say his age was? ANSWER:: Probably somewhere in his 40's. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE JUDGE WILSON:: Do I understand from that that the familydoes not want you to put anything to this witness? MR MPSHE:: That is so Mr Chairman and members of the Committee,I consulted with them during the tea-break. MS KHAMPEPE:: In that case Brigadier, you have consistentlymaintained that one of the objectives of Mbkhoto in destabilisingthe Kwandabele community was to encourage school boycotts. Isit not probably true that Mbkhoto's objective was to crush schoolboycotts as they were perceived by Kwandabele Cabinet to furtherthe cause of the ANC mobilising the youth against independence? ANSWER:: I have also said Chair that I have informationof a particular case where Pete Ntuli and Mbkhoto with sjamboksand knopkerries, chased children and teachers out of a particularschool. QUESTION:: What was the reason for thrashing the kidsand the teachers was it for purposes of encouraging a boycott? ANSWER:: I could only deduce that he did not want thechildren to be at school. JUDGE WILSON:: Were they conducting a boycott at the schoolwhen he arrived? ANSWER:: No they were in the school with their schoolbooksand so on. MS KHAMPEPE:: Is it not true that Mr Ntuli was concededby the South African Government as a thorn in its flesh as hehad actually overstepped the mark. He had been put there totry and encourage the Kwandabele community to (indistinct) independence,in fact what he did was he unleashed such terror in the atrocitieswhich he committed against his own community, the whole communityand the turning against the concept of independence? ANSWER:: This is the case, he was in fact a thorn in theflesh for the South African Government, and through his actionshe caused problems for their policy or caused it to fail. MS KHAMPEPE:: Therefore it would be highly unlikely thatthe Government decided to eliminate him because it suspected himof being a double agent, it simply was sitting with an embarrassingproblem, not that Mr Ntuli was ever perceived by the South AfricanGovernment as being an agent of the ANC or the UDF? ANSWER:: I could grant that that would not have been themain reason for his elimination. The first reason would havebeen the true reason. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier Cronje,you said that the main reason for eliminating Pete Ntuli was that the effect of his actions were that people turned againstindependence and that this would have caused the apartheid policyof the South African Government to fail, you said that was themain reason for his elimination. The information available toyou with regard to the ANC links, was that just a small additionalfact? ANSWER:: Yes it was a small additional fact, I also thoughtso. QUESTION:: Your actions with regard to the elimination,did you consider this to be carrying out the policy of the NationalParty? QUESTION:: Brigadier, would your Unit have acted in theKwandabele region? QUESTION:: Would there have been incidents where someof your subordinates would have been involved in the eliminationof activists in the Kwandabele area, ANC activists? QUESTION:: Brigadier are you quite sure that you remembercorrectly in that regard? ANSWER:: Please repeat the question. QUESTION:: I'm asking you did any of your subordinatesget involved in... ANSWER:: Sorry yes there were such incidents. QUESTION: Do you have knowledge of the incident of theKwandabele 9? ANSWER:: Yes I do remember this, my apologies. QUESTION:: Brigadier, when it was decided to act againstPete Ntuli, would he already have been a Minister? QUESTION:: Mr Chairman just afford me one second please. Brigadier the destabilising actions of Ntuli, apart from schoolboycotts, you've given some testimony in this regard but justto get it quite clear in a final way, could you just expand onwhat exactly Pete Ntuli was involved in? ANSWER:: Murder, arson, consumer boycotts, school boycotts. QUESTION:: Brigadier did the people of Kwandabele hatePete Ntuli? QUESTION:: Can you remember what the reaction was to hisdeath? ANSWER:: After his death the people of Kwandabele hadfestivities for about two months. QUESTION:: Would his death have helped to achieve theindependence of Kwandabele? ANSWER:: It would have contributed to it. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: You've repeated that he has committed somevery, very serious offences this man Mr Ntuli that was known toyou, do you know whether he was ever charged or brought beforethe Court for any of those offences? ANSWER:: He was never charged Chair. CHAIRMAN:: Was that because it might have been an embarrassmentto the South African Government to have him charged? ANSWER:: Very definitely that would be the reason. CHAIRMAN:: ...charges related to offences such as murder? CHAIRMAN:: My attention has been drawn to the fact thatMr Wolf(?) Meintjies is present. Mr Meintjies do I understand that you have come here to participate in these proceedings onbehalf of a client? MR MEINTJIES:: Mr Chair I am on record as the representativeof Captain Van Jaarsveld who is implicated in these proceedingsand in this capacity I would appreciate the opportunity to askquestions to the witnesses if possible. Thank you Chair. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES QUESTION:: Brigadier as far as then Captain Van Jaarsveldis being implicated by your testimony, would he have been subjectto the same structures of authority or commanding structures andthe same political motivations as that which you have extensivelysketched to this Committee? ANSWER:: He would have been Chair. Can I elaborate,he was under my command and I will take responsibility for hisactions in this regard. MR MEINTJIES:: Thank you Brigadier. Mr Chair I haveno further questions or further reasons to ask questions to thiswitness. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES JUDGE WILSON:: I'd just like to clear up the questionof you say Ntuli was never charged. Were there ever any investigationsheld into his behaviour, into the crimes he committed? ANSWER:: There were as I said a special investigativeteam Chair under the command of Brigadier Dantjie Van Wyk, theyinvestigated every one of these incidents. JUDGE WILSON:: Were the dockets prepared and sent to theAttorney-General? ANSWER:: As far as I know yes Chair there were dossiersin preparation but what became of these dossiers I would not know. MS KHAMPEPE:: Brigadier would you regard Mbkhoto as apolitical organisation or as a cultural organisation? ANSWER:: To some extent they started as a cultural organisationbut I would say that through the course of events and becauseof Pete Ntuli they become more politically active than culturally. MS KHAMPEPE:: Would you therefore regard them as a politicalorganisation as you would like the ANC, the PAC, would they qualifyin that status? ANSWER:: Not quite of the same stature. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you very much. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman, I beg leave tocall Captain Hechter on the same incident. You will find thaton page 234 of his application. Mr Chairman before we start,it seems that the one aspect of these applications in the pressureunder which they were drawn that didn't receive the attentionthat it should have received was the specific deeds and the identificationthereof. In the case of Captain Hechter I would like to justrefer you to page 234, the reference to "attempted murder"should actually be a reference to "murder". CHAIRMAN:: If it is convenient at some stage for you tosubmit just the pages that you wish amended, more particularlyreflecting the offences because when amnesty is considered, specialattention can only be given to the offences specifically mentioned. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, Mr Chairman my intention was to atthe end of the applications, in argument when I deal with that, to hand up to you specific pages referring to all the incidentsin which I will try to identify further acts which have not perhapsbeen specifically identified at this stage. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter I am not going to take youthrough the whole matter because it is exactly the same as BrigadierCronje's evidence. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, regarding the evidence aboutthe political motivation, do you agree with Brigadier Cronje'sevidence? ANSWER:: That is the case, where the Brigadier cannotremember everything perhaps I can remember that during June orJuly, the period around the burning point, the Mbkhoto went outone night and burned down 50 houses. There were about 30 peopledied that night or were killed. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter then there are one or two furtheraspects that you could perhaps explain to the Committee. Letus start on page 237, you refer to a specially built bomb, canyou please explain a bit more about this bomb to the Committee? ANSWER:: Mr Chairman, this bomb was built by the SpecialForces of the SADF for this specific operation. If I remembercorrectly, Joe Verster pertinently asked me what kind of vehiclewas used, I had to go and find out what the registration numberwas so that we can determine the number of the chassis and sothat they could build a ready-made bomb for this specific vehicle. This bomb was specifically built with plastic, plasticine, itwas about 4kg, it was designed in such a way that it could be mounted on the vehiclewithout the necessity of light, without you having to see whatyou were doing exactly. The precise measurements are difficultto tell, it was approximately twice as large as a normal foliopage, I would say it was about 2-3cms thick. The explosiveswere in a black tin or plate covering which was in a square form. This bomb also had a safety time mechanism. After the bombwas mounted you pulled out the safety pin after which the bombwould be activated 30 minutes later. The bomb also had two separatepush buttons to let the bomb explode to prevent a malfunction. After the button had been pushed, on request, there was a 30second time lapse. We suspected where Mr Ntuli would be thatday approximately and we knew the route he took to his house. We also knew that he was a person who normally drove at onespeed. He kept to the speed limit. We thought if there wasa 30 minute time lapse, sorry 30 second time lapse he would bein an open piece of veld and we wanted the bomb to explode inthat area that was not built up, but we did not want to followyou so that we would be noticed. QUESTION:: Why did you want the bomb to explode in theopen area? ANSWER:: If that bomb would have exploded in a built uparea, civilians who were not involved would have been injured. QUESTION:: Captain, you personally mounted the bomb isthat correct? QUESTION:: Captain can you remember an incident some timeafter this incident, was this incident discussed with you later on, did you go back to the place where it happened, canyou remember anything else? ANSWER:: What exactly are you referring to? QUESTION:: Was there ever a discussion with any of thecommanding officers? ANSWER:: A long time afterwards, as a matter of fact onlyrecently before Colonel Van Jaarsveld became a witness, we discussedthe Ntuli case and he...(end of side 2)...with Brigadier Cronjewhen he received a call from the main office to go there and discussthe Ntuli case. He left Captain Van Jaarsveld in the officeand went to the main office. Just after that when he came backI was called and I received the task to eliminate Mr Ntuli. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter did you ever receive verificationafter the event from anybody above you that the people higherup in the ranks knew about this instruction, this order? ANSWER:: It is difficult to remember Mr Chairman, I suspector I believe that Brigadier Cronje told me or mentioned it tome that we received an order to eliminate Mr Ntuli. I cannotmention a name, I can't imagine that a name was mentioned, I can'tremember. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter did you, during any discussionswith Basie Smit, discuss this with him, was there any mentionof this incident? ANSWER:: After Brigadier Smit or General Smit took overat the Safety Branch he called me, W/O Van Vuuren and ColonelLoots and he asked us to go with him to Kwandabele. The fourof us went to Kwandabele with his vehicle, I was driving it. When we came into Siabuswa on that road, we drove over the holethat at that stage had already been fixed. Then General Smit said "Hechter this is your monument". I did not admit that and he turned around and he said "don'ttry to make a fool of me I did read the reports" but I stilldenied it. QUESTION:: Did he at any stage repudiate it? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: As far as you were concerned where did youget your specific instructions in connection with this incident? ANSWER:: The instruction came directly from the Brigadier,Brigadier Cronje. CHAIRMAN:: Do I understand the position that nobody challengedyour actions or made any comment about it? ANSWER:: As the Brigadier gave testimony, he gave in areport and at the same time I also handed in a report in whichI mentioned why I was there and I said I was there as the Brigadier'sdriver. At that time a senior officer had instructions fromhead office that senior offices were not supposed to enter theseareas without a driver, so they were not allowed to enter theseareas on their own. MS KHAMPEPE:: Captain, was Trevits ever advised of thesuccess of your operation? ANSWER:: Unfortunately Chair I was too insignificant tohave anything to do with Trevits, I had no idea what happenedsubsequently. QUESTION:: Captain were you told by anybody to fabricateyour report? ANSWER:: Not at all, no one asked any particular questions. All that I was asked is what I was doing in Kwandabele and allI had to say was that I was the Brigadier's driver, that was the general practice there were no additional questioningin that regard. QUESTION:: What I am saying is were you directed or instructedby anybody to tell untruth as you did in your report? ANSWER:: It wasn't quite an untruth I just left out someparts of it, I simply said that I accompanied the Brigadier anddidn't expand on it and no one asked me any further questions. QUESTION:: You told them that you accompanied him as yourdriver? QUESTION:: Were you his driver? ANSWER:: In many cases when he entered dangerous areas,areas where there had been unrest, certain areas were more dangerousthan others and from head office we received instructions thatour senior officers were not supposed to enter these areas withouta driver. They were not allowed to do so. In every case wherehe entered such an area I did accompany him so this was the normalcourse of events, it didn't appear as strange to anyone or outsideof the ordinary to anyone. QUESTION:: But were you driving on this particular day? ANSWER:: Yes I was the driver on this particular day. QUESTION:: What have you done, because this is not disclosedin your evidence, what have you done that caused you to applyfor amnesty on arson? ANSWER:: When a bomb like that explodes, there is a lotof burning involved. This is probably not arson as such buta lot of fire is involved in such an incident, yes we do mentionarson. I assumed that there would have been quite a lot of fire due to the explosives, also where plastic explosiveswere involved there would be a major involved. QUESTION:: Captain there is no evidence by yourself aboutarson. QUESTION:: You testified that Mbkhoto at one stage burned50 houses and killed about 30 people. Were any arrests madefor this? ANSWER:: Chair there were, as Brigadier Cronje alreadymentioned, after the problem started the full-scale problems inKwandabele a special investigative team was sent to Kwandabelewho had to deal with all of these activities. There were manydossiers but whether there were any arrests made I would not beable to answer. I do know from my conversations with Sgt Gouwsand W/O Oosthuizen, who at that time were part of the investigativeteam, that there were large numbers of dossiers. Intimidationwould be similar, you wouldn't openly discuss some things thathappened to you, you would have been careful to discuss Pete Ntulior to make any claims with regard to Pete Ntuli in public. MS KHAMPEPE:: In your opinion then Captain would you saythat that incident where 30 people died was probably the laststraw in the South African Government's neck which resulted inthe Government deciding to eliminate Mr Ntuli? ANSWER:: Chair that's very difficult for me to say whatthe reactions of Government would have been to that particularact, I wouldn't be able to tell you. One can assume what theirreaction was but you can't verify it. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd) QUESTION:: Captain would you agree with me if I put itto you that Pete Ntuli was eliminated simply because he was an embarrassment to the then National Party Government and not becausecertain political objectives were to be achieved? ANSWER:: I would not be able to answer you in this regard,but that he was indeed an embarrassment for the Government thatis a fact. In addition he achieved the purposes of the ANC quiteobviously, that was quite clear to everybody. At the time thecomrades were very strongly present in Kwandabele, for one tomake a distinction between when a comrade or when Mr Ntuli burneddown a house in Kwandabele, that was very difficult. As faras we were concerned, the Security Branch, he simply advancedthe purposes of the ANC at that time by making the area ungovernable,entirely ungovernable. At that time there were major discussions,negotiations, with a view to the independence of Kwandabele butin view of the unrest this would not have been possible. It wasfirst necessary to stabilise the area. If I'm not entirely mistaken,shortly after this incident the Kwandabele members of Parliamentwent down to Cape Town to negotiate with the National Party withregard to the independence, but this is only what I have heard,this is hearsay I only heard from the investigative officers thatthe Cabinet members had gone down to Cape Town. There mightbe testimony in this regard I see there are members of the thenGovernment available here but I wouldn't know. QUESTION:: Would you say that the Kwandabele Governmentknew about the plan to eliminate Pete Ntuli? ANSWER:: I doubt that very strongly but that of courseis only my perception and when I said I was too small, too insignificantI mean that I was too low down in the hierarchy of command tobe aware or informed of such decisions. QUESTION:: You told us that you planted the bomb in Pete Ntuli's car, could you tell us exactly where you placed it? ANSWER:: Chair yes, this particular bomb - as I've alreadygiven testimony - was designed with this particular purpose inmind. It was placed immediately under Mr Ntuli's seat on theoutside of the vehicle, directly under his driver's seat. Itwas shaped in such a way or built in such a way that one coulduse a screw to attach it to the vehicle as such which meant thatthe bomb for instance, while the vehicle was driving and it wasimpossible to detonate the bomb, then the bomb wouldn't have fallenoff the vehicle. It was purpose built so that in the dark, withoutbeing able to see anything, I could screw it onto the vehicle. QUESTION:: Was Mr Ntuli, if you know this Captain, everdetained in the past? ANSWER:: I would not be able to answer on that Mr Chair. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE MS KHAMPEPE:: Captain do you know the political affiliationof the persons whose houses were burned down by Mr Ntuli? ANSWER:: Unfortunately not Chair, I do not know. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Meintjies have you any questions to putto this witness? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I perhaps just beforeMr Meintjies asks questions just place it on record Mr Chairmanthat he represents Jaap Van Jaarsveld who is a 204 State witnesswhom the applicants made an application about at the beginningof this matter and who in accordance with the Committee's decision,cannot give evidence at these hearings in support of the applicants. I just want to place that on record Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, in other words Mr Van Jaarsveld cannotgive MR DU PLESSIS:: No he's not giving evidence but he's representativeis being allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. MR MPSHE:: Mr Du Plessis you will recall that our positionis that while we cannot issue subpoena against him, he is freeto come and testify if he wants to. MR DU PLESSIS:: I realise that, I'm not fighting withthe Committee, I simply want to place this fact on record. JUDGE WILSON:: You used the word "he cannot"give evidence though, that is not the position is it, he cannotbe compelled by you to give evidence but he can on his own? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chair I'm not sure that that was howhis legal representative understood it. I take note of that. Mr Chairman I may however also want to place on record that asfar as the Attorney-General is concerned, as we understand it,their view is that they refuse their witnesses leave to testifyeven of their own accord at these hearings. As I understand it,they have an agreement with the specific witnesses and the witnesseswould breach the agreement if they testify here. I just wantto put that on record as well. MR MEINTJIES:: Chair should I reply to my learned friend'sargument? CHAIRMAN:: Yes, what do you have to say? MR MEINTJIES:: Mr Chair the matter is or was right atthe beginning of this hearing it was placed before the Committee,at that time the Committee said that I will be allowed to askquestions even if the Committee might want to then determine thatthe witnesses need not be called. My client will in future most likely apply for amnesty to this Commission and it is therefore important for my client that shouldthere be any testimony given before the Committee which wouldbe to his disadvantage, that it must be cleared out in this hearing. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES CHAIRMAN:: I take it you have no re-examination of thiswitness? NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: Mr Mpshe you have no further questions? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I am calling one of the... CHAIRMAN:: Yes, Mr Du Plessis are you calling any furtherwitnesses on this aspect of the matter? MR DU PLESSIS:: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, I'm not callingany further witnesses. MR MPSHE:: I am then calling a witness Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may I just be given an indulgence there is somethingthat has been raised with me here? QUESTION:: The deceased, Pete Ntuli, what was he to you? QUESTION:: How were you married? QUESTION:: How were you married? QUESTION:: Is it so that Mr Ntuli had more than one wives? QUESTION:: How many wives did he have? QUESTION:: What is your ranking in that line? QUESTION:: Where are the other wives? ANSWER:: They are just behind Mr Mpshe. QUESTION:: The marriage between yourself and Mr Ntuliand the other four wives, is it recognised in terms of the Kwandabele'sas a valid marriage? QUESTION:: Did you have children with Mr Ntuli, yourself? QUESTION:: How old is that child? ANSWER:: Twenty years old, 12 years old. QUESTION:: Is it a girl or a boy? QUESTION:: Is he school-going? QUESTION:: ...do for a living? ANSWER:: I'm not doing anything. QUESTION:: Is it correct that you have been selected bythe other wives to represent them in this hearing? MS KHAMPEPE:: Can we have the name of the child for therecord? QUESTION:: What is the name of your child? QUESTION:: Did Mr Ntuli have children by the other fourwives? QUESTION:: How many in all are they? ANSWER:: Including my child, 12. QUESTION:: Are you able to tell us the names of the 11children? QUESTION:: Tell us the name and the age. ANSWER:: Kenneth, I can't tell his age. Snyman(?) Emily. Martini Mercy. I'm not sure about their age. (Indistinct)1991, 93 Figele, 1993 Viso, 1984, Mike 1986, Mike 84, Gugu 86. CHAIRMAN:: ...a piece of paper and hand it in. MR MPSHE:: I will do so Mr Chairman I was doing that inorder to avoid... MR MPSHE:: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Mpshe do you know whether the R&Ror HRV Committee furnished the widows with forms to complete inorder to be classified as victims? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chair is it said that do I know whetherthey have been furnished? MR DE JAGER:: Yes, and have they been completed? MR MPSHE:: No I don't know Mr Chairman. MR DE JAGER:: Because that could save a lot of time ifit's CHAIRMAN:: Yes, proceed Mr Mpshe. QUESTION:: You say Nogutala you were seated here whenevidence was given by applicants concerning your husband? QUESTION:: How do you feel about that evidence? ANSWER:: I'm feeling bad, I'm not feeling okay, I haveone question which I want to ask Mr Cronje. Who gave him theinstruction to kill my husband? QUESTION:: ...give you that information. The applicants,the two of them approached this Committee to ask that they bepardoned for what they have done. What would your attitude beto that? ANSWER:: I personally I cannot forgive them. QUESTION:: What is the feeling of the other four wiveswith whom you consulted today? QUESTION:: Mrs Ntuli you have had, let me put it thisway, you do read newspapers and watch TV, not so? ANSWER:: Yes I do read newspapers and I do watch television. QUESTION:: I assume that you know about this Truth &Reconciliation Commission that is going on, of which Amnesty ispart thereof? QUESTION:: Do you know that this is done by the Governmentto foster or to promote reconciliation in the country? QUESTION:: What is your attitude about this reconciliation ANSWER:: I don't have any comment on that one. QUESTION:: Do you believe in reconciliation Mrs Ntuli? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have one questionfor the witness. When the applicants started with these applications,they stated...(end of side 1)...who suffered on both sides ofthe conflicts of South Africa in the past. Do you accept whatthey say or what is your reaction thereto? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR MPSHE:: That will be all Mr Chairman. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Mpshe before we close this case or thisapplication, can you now inform us whether the implicated personsreceived their notices, when they received it, were they timeousin order to be here and what is the position with the applicationof Joe Verster. Was he informed or what is the position? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, Iwill repeat what I said yesterday as well as this morning. Theforms have gone out, these are signed by a Commissioner and Istated very clearly yesterday that I do not have with me the returnof service to that effect. I said it further that these maybe with me today and this morning when this issue was reopened,I stated it very categorically that at 06:15 this morning I contactedthe head of investigation, Advocate Andre Steenkamp and askedhim about the progress made, to which he said he has served some but he is still busy with some but he is going to come to me and meet me herethis morning and give me those which he has already served. During the tea-break I contacted him again and he said to me heis on his way coming down this way and he will make sure he ishere by lunch time. I have not seen him up until now. No 2,inasfar as the person mentioned by the Member of the Committee,Mr Joe Verster, I have just checked my list, he's not one of thosewho is informed. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Chair I'm worried that an employee ofthe Commission promised you to be here this morning, he wasn't,he wasn't here at tea-time and as far as we can see he's not herenow. We must proceed with this matter without knowing whetheranybody has been informed. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman that is so and that may be unacceptablebut this is the report that I'm given that transpired betweenmyself and him today as to why he's not here as he had promisedor timeously, to that I cannot respond, with respect. CHAIRMAN:: Perhaps when we resume you may be better informed. MR MPSHE:: Perhaps he shall be here by then Mr Chairman. MR MPSHE:: I will endeavour to get in touch with him oncemore. CHAIRMAN:: We will adjourn now and resume at 2 o'clock. COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION CHAIRMAN:: Yes Mr Mpshe, where do we proceed to from here? MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the nextmatter is the Nietverdient 10. MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman mayI MR DU PLESSIS:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman youwill find this matter in the application of Captain Hechter atpage 36 and I beg leave to call Captain Hechter as witness. Mr Chairman I beg your pardon, I will call Brigadier Cronje first,you will find that on page 86 of his application, page 87 Mr Chairman,87 yes. QUESTION:: Brigadier could you explain to us what happenedin this incident? ANSWER:: Joe Mamasela infiltrated a group of young activistsin Mamelodi. He informed me that they wanted to receive militarytraining abroad and a meeting was arranged between myself andColonel Shamadiaz(?) of Special Forces where we discussed thismatter. QUESTION:: Brigadier can I just stop you here. Did JoeMamasela tell you whether he had convinced the young activiststo receive training or whether they volunteered to receive thistraining? ANSWER:: No he said that they volunteered, they approachedhim. To inform the Committee, Mamasela always presented himselfas a member of MK that is why it was easy for him, it was regularlythat people had asked him questions such as these. A Kombi wasmade available to Mamasela, I must in addition say that from theZeerust office I discussed this with Crouse and Loots that ona particular evening we would meet at the Security Branch officesin Zeerust. I made this Kombi available to Mamasela and hearranged to take these MK soldiers, or intended MK soldiers, acrossthe border at Nietverdient to Botswana for training purposes. Mamasela left with the Kombi. After he had picked up these persons,Captain Hechter and myself followed them in my car to watch theKombi to ensure Mamasela's safety. Mamasela gave these personsbeer and then at the Zeerust Security Branch I and Hechter contactedLoots, Crouse and Shamadiaz of the SADF. I met Mamasela in townand told him to drive the Nietverdient road and then to turn downthat particular dirt road, close to Nietverdient. Mamasela wentahead, Hechter, Loots, Crouse and myself then followed them ina Kombi. Mamasela followed this lonely little bush path as arranged,then we parked behind Mamasela's road but there was a furtherKombi at the scene with four of Shamadiaz' operatives, whom Ido not know, all of them were wearing balaclava caps and theywere awaiting Mamasela at that point. When he stopped, theytook the persons out of this vehicle, they were under the influenceof alcohol to a considerable extent at that time. As they weretaken out of the Kombi, the members of the military pressed themdown to the ground and injected them with something. QUESTION:: Brigadier would you know what the contentsof the injections were? ANSWER:: No I have no idea. They were then put backin the Kombi and then we drove to an area in Bophutatswana. This Kombi with the trainee soldiers was pushed down an inclineand then the Kombi was filled with explosives and blown up. The purpose was to let it appear as if the intended MK soldiersdrove up against a wall or against the incline and blew themselvesup. The Botswana police investigated this car wreck and theremains of the persons in it. There were some newspaper reports,after which General Victor phoned me to ask me whether it had been our staff who were hurt. I told him that was the case. He congratulatedme with the operation. The particular young persons were verykeen to receive military training. The purpose of the operationwas to eliminate the prospective activists before they could leavethe country so that it could serve to frighten other prospectiveactivists from joining MK. A further purpose was to eliminateprospective MK soldiers who at a later stage could return as well-trainedterrorists and commit acts of terror. I would have had no ideawhere they would then have committed these acts of terror. While I cannot remember the specific detail, I do remember thatthese activists probably had all been involved in school boycotts,consumer boycotts and arson. QUESTION:: Thank you Brigadier. In your view, was thereany other way in which you could have dealt with these prospectivesoldiers under these circumstances in order to prevent them fromreceiving training and then to return to commit acts of terror? ANSWER:: No, we did not see any other way of dealing withthem. QUESTION:: Brigadier, the political purposes of the actyou have already set out from page 91 and thereafter what thepolitical purposes were. Do you confirm these as set out? QUESTION:: Brigadier in terms of what instructions didyou act? ANSWER:: In terms of the general instructions from BrigadierVictor. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRMAN:: You knew from the outset that these young boys were going to be doomed to die? CHAIRMAN:: Do you know the names of these young people? ANSWER:: I do not know their names. CHAIRMAN:: To your knowledge did anybody have a list ofwho they were? ANSWER:: Mamasela would have had a list or at least hewould have known the names. MR ?:: Can I mention we are on record for this matterjust in case you are unaware of that. CHAIRMAN:: So this entire exercise was brought into beingas a result of a report from Mamasela that these youngsters wantedto go for military training? ANSWER:: That is the case Chair. CHAIRMAN:: No attempt was made to get hold of these youngsters,to talk them out of it, to educate them differently, no attemptwas made to treat them in that fashion? ANSWER:: Mamasela had instructions to talk to them andit turned out that they were all extremely convinced of theirintentions. CHAIRMAN:: Do you know whether in fact Mamasela enticedthem to join, you wouldn't know would you? ANSWER:: No I would not know, but his instructions werespecifically that he was not supposed to entice people to joinMK or any such actions. CHAIRMAN:: Mamasela being the kind of man he was, couldyou place any reliance on what he would say? ANSWER:: At that time I trusted Mamasela entirely, hehad given me no reason for not trusting him. CHAIRMAN:: Where did you get the report that these youngsters were involved in boycotts, school boycotts and activitiesof that kind? ANSWER:: Again that would have been the source reportsas well as Mamasela's own reports. CHAIRMAN:: Mamasela's reports, were they oral or in writing? ANSWER:: That would have been written reports. ANSWER:: No he would have given it to the particular sectionwho worked with these matters, he would have given the reportsto them. I would, however, have had access to these reports. CHAIRMAN:: In this case who would it be to whom he madethis report? ANSWER:: These would have been the B Section who dealtwith the Black Power matters. CHAIRMAN:: ...obviously before the plan was implemented? ANSWER:: Not necessarily, he might have given reportsprior to this on their activities. His report that they wantedto receive military training, that would have been an oral orverbal report. JUDGE WILSON:: You made no attempt to prosecute them either,did you. ANSWER:: At that time I had no testimony which I coulduse in a case against them. JUDGE WILSON:: With the facilities available to you, youcould have quite easily installed tape recorders into the Kombi,you could have recorded their conversations with Mamasela, couldyou not? ANSWER:: Again I would have to use Mamasela as a witness, JUDGE WILSON:: We come back to the position that we'vehad in previous cases, that once you used Mamasela, the peoplehe dealt with were sentenced to death. Is that the position? ANSWER:: Not in every case Chair. JUDGE WILSON:: I thought that everyone you've told usso far where Mamasela dealt with people, they had to be killedto cover for Mamasela. Is that not the position? ANSWER:: No, Mamasela did many other investigations. JUDGE WILSON:: Well why didn't (indistinct) people tocover for Mamasela? ANSWER:: The purpose was not to protect his identity orto cover for him, but to prevent them from leaving the countryand from receiving military training because then they would havereturned as trained terrorists. JUDGE WILSON:: ...arresting them and sending them to prisonfor a number of years, you would achieve that would you not? Many people were prosecuted, many people were sent to prison,but you choose not to take that route. Is that not so? ANSWER:: I did so because I had insufficient testimonyfor a court case. JUDGE WILSON:: You made no attempt to get any, did you? ANSWER:: Not at that time, no. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. When were the SpecialForces linked to this matter, where was this planned, the planningof the link with Special Forces? ANSWER:: Is this the provisional planning. Yes, theplanning which involved Special Forces made them available, made the various bombs available and so forth. This was QUESTION:: Brigadier you know that in the 80's there wereliterally thousands of comrades in the townships around Pretoria? QUESTION:: You worked very closely with the Riot Squad,did you not? ANSWER:: Yes we did work closely with them. QUESTION:: You know that the modus operandi duringthe 80's with regard to the comrades was generally to call inthe Riot Squad, to break up public riots that were occurring inthe townships, to involve the Riot Squad in arresting literallyscores and scores of activists, of prosecuting them. That wasthe modus operandi, it happened daily, you know that. ANSWER:: It did happen in this way yes. QUESTION:: That was the way in which the vast, vast majorityof comrades in the townships were dealt with. QUESTION:: You've told us that to qualify as an activist,in your terms to qualify for elimination, the particular activistneeded to have been involved in serious activities. You saidthat it wasn't just one or two or three of the lesser significantactivities, is that correct? QUESTION:: For instance your evidence is that they wereinvolved in school boycotts, consumer boycotts and arson? QUESTION:: Were those activities sufficient to justifyelimination? ANSWER:: No, the fact that they were on their way to military training was, to my view, just cause for eliminatingthem. CHAIRMAN:: Actually they were taken on their way to whatthey believed was military training, they were not on their waythey were being taken by you, isn't that so? ANSWER:: This is the case but it was their request Chair. QUESTION:: You don't know that for a fact. ANSWER:: This was Mamasela's report to me and I had noreason to distrust Mamasela or to doubt his word. QUESTION:: Mamasela had never gone to those particularcomrades, the likelihood is that those particular individualswould never on their own have made their way overseas. The probabilityis that they would never ever on their own have made their wayoverseas for training as MK soldiers. ANSWER:: My instructions to Mamasela were never to enticeanyone, that people had to voluntarily decide to go for training. QUESTION:: Mamasela was a very, very professional operator. ANSWER:: I knew this and that is why I believed that whichhe told me. QUESTION:: A very professional operator in the townships. ANSWER:: This is in fact the case that is why I believedwhat he told me. QUESTION:: ...know that he was a man in his late 30's,I think probably late 30's at that stage, he made out to be asenior MK soldier, he goes into Mamelodi. I put it to you thathe probably could have persuaded virtually any of the comradesto go into training across the border, if he tried. ANSWER:: If he wanted to do yes he would have been ableto but again my instruction to him was that he should not have doneso. No I wouldn't know whether that was the case. MS KHAMPEPE:: May I interpose here? Brigadier therewas no urgency to execute this operation, there was no great urgencyto eliminate the young activists, was there? ANSWER:: They wanted urgently to leave the country andtherefore I had no choice. MS KHAMPEPE:: But you could have made attempts to verifythe information that you had received from Mamasela that theywanted to train. Why didn't you do that? ANSWER:: The fact that they were in fact on their waywith Mamasela convinced me that it was with the intent of receivingtraining. JUDGE WILSON:: These men died on Mamasela's word, withno check from you, is that what you are now telling us? Youaccepted what Mamasela told you. QUESTION:: Brigadier in your written statement at page89, the second paragraph, you say "The purpose of the operation was, however, to eliminateprospective activists..." So in your own mind these were not really even qualified activists,they were only prospective activists? ANSWER:: That's an error, there should be "prospectiveMK soldiers". QUESTION:: ...must have read this on many occasions. ANSWER:: I did but this was a mistake. MR DU PLESSIS:: Five sentences further he refers to "theelimination of prospective MK soldiers". (Discussion asto 3b wording/... wording of Brigadier Cronje's affidavit). CHAIRMAN:: I don't want this argument to revolve aroundgrammatical construction or words and meanings. Just the ideabehind it is what we should discuss and debate. QUESTION:: May it please the Court. In your own...as"potential activists"? ANSWER:: I saw them as prospective MK soldiers Chair. QUESTION:: I think you should know a little bit aboutthe people that were involved in this incident. In your applicationyou make no mention of their names, their ages or anything ofthat nature and I would like to use this opportunity to tell youwho they were. Just for the record as well I think it mightbe helpful. Mr Chairman I should just mention there is a certainamount of confusion with regard to the people who were killedin this particular incident. There were two incidents whichhave been investigated by the office of the Attorney-General andsome of the parents are not sure whether their children were killedin this incident or the other incident. So we actually have11 names and not 9. CHAIRMAN:: Are these incidents separated in point of time? MR CURRIN:: They were separated in point of time, butsome of the parents are not absolutely sure of the date when theirchildren disappeared, so that is a little bit of a difficultythat we have and we have discussed it with the representativeof the Attorney-General's office. I am going to mention 11 namesbut obviously all 11 were not, we don't know which are the 9 ofthese 11. I am not absolutely certain about the other incident,it's not something as far as we know that is subject to an application here at the moment. Apparently it's the Kwandabele application there's a bit of overlap. I'll just tellyou briefly about the victims. There was Abraham Makolane, atthe time he was 17 years old and he was a student at the J KikanaHigh School in Std 8. He was a comrade and he had been arrestedon a few occasions and at one stage was charged with arson andpublic violence. Then there was Samuel Masilela, he was 16years old. He was in Form 1 at Mamelodi High School. Accordingto his mother he was also a comrade. Her recollection is thaton one occasion the police had come to the house looking for him. He had never been detained or charged. Then there was SiphoPhillip Sibanyoni, he was 15 years old. He was also a, accordingto...(end of side 2)...he was in Std 9 at the Japhta MshlanguSchool. His mother is unaware of any political activity by him. He was never detained or arrested by the police. Then therewas Thomas Phiri. According to his sister he was 22 years oldat the time of his disappearance. He was in Std 9, we don'thave the name of the school. He was also an activist and a comrade,but had never been either detained or arrested. Then there wasJeremiah Magagula. According to his mother he was 16 years oldwhen he disappeared. He was attending the Mthombo Primary Schoolin Mamelodi. He was a comrade, politically active but had neverbeen arrested. Then there was Morris Nkabinde, he was 19 yearsold when he disappeared. He was also a comrade, although hehad never been arrested. Then there was Matthews Promapana Lerutla. He was 15 years old when he disappeared. According to hismother he was also a comrade. He had been taken by the policeon one occasion but was not charged. Then there was StephenMakena. According to his mother he was 18 when he disappeared. He was also politically active and a comrade but he had never beenarrested. Then there was Elliot Sathege, he was 20 years old.Also a comrade but never arrested and that's 10 not 11. One othername we've got here is Sibia but he, we've verified, is in factpart of the Kwandabele group. So we have 10 names and not 9.I want to put it to you Brigadier that these young boys were typicalcomrades in the townships who got involved in the general activitiesof comrades, which generally speaking was forms of public violencein the sense of marches through the streets, boycotts, which wasthe general activity of the comrades as you know. ANSWER:: That is likely to have been the case. QUESTION:: What is also interesting in your written documentis you say that, on page 89 at the last paragraph you say "I do, however, remember that these activists were probablyall involved in school boycotts, consumer boycotts and arson." ANSWER:: This was 10 years ago and I cannot remember thedetails with great precision. QUESTION:: Could you go to page 91 where you talk aboutthe "purpose of the operation". After the incidentyou did everything in your power to create the impression thatit was an accident, correct? ANSWER:: (Very loud buzzing, reply inaudible)... ANSWER:: I cannot remember exactly what the newspaperreport said, I do not ....(buzzing continuing, extremely loud). QUESTION:: ...police killed them. ANSWER:: No I do not believe that they said anything likethat. QUESTION:: ...this (i) under "intimidation"apply as an objective in this case, they died in an accident howwould that dissuade other comrades from carrying on their activities? ANSWER:: It could have dissuaded them in this sense, thatothers would have known that if you get involved with explosivesyou would die. QUESTION:: So it dissuades them because they may havean accident, other comrades may have a similar accident, is thatwhat you are saying? QUESTION:: They weren't killed in the accident they werekilled as a result of the explosion, isn't that so? (Discussionbetween counsel and member of Committee about bomb in the car). (iv) on page 92, you talk about your modus operandi andyou say "The general modus operandi was to strike back immediately." This wasn't a hit-back, this was a pre-emptive act. MR DU PLESSIS:: I don't know whether this point would,in this particular case, be applicable. I just want to reiteratethe point and I've made this point 100 times now, that the generalmotivation for some of these acts have been included in respectof certain deeds. It is obvious that the facts of some of thesedeeds differ from time to time and perhaps here and there a specificmotivation which forms part of the general motivation might notbe all too applicable in that specific instance. Under thesecircumstances I really think it is unfair of my learned friend to pick out those specific paragraphs that might not be100% particular to that specific incident when he deals with cross-examinationof the general motivation. CHAIRMAN:: I think in fairness you should bear that inmind because he's outlined a number of general principles, whetherthey apply specifically to every one of the instances is anothermatter. MR CURRIN:: I certainly will bear that in mind, there'sjust a possibility that in some instances one may whittle themall down and then there will be nothing left and that's preciselywhat I am trying to do. CHAIRMAN:: ...you bear in mind that these are generalprinciples. QUESTION:: Would you agree that (v) does not apply inthis case? QUESTION:: (vi) also seems to be irrelevant. CHAIRMAN:: It might be best if you asked him which heconsidered to be relevant? MR CURRIN:: I think we've got to the last one anyway butin future I will do that and if necessary contest the witness'sopinion. QUESTION:: Under "beinvloed van blanke kiesers",which of those do you believe are relevant? ANSWER:: Three would be applicable, (v)... ANSWER:: It would have confirmed trust in the apartheidgovernment because people would believe that these persons were poorly trained and that is why they blew themselves up. QUESTION:: (v) and (vii) are the same and under (c) ofcourse, nothing is relevant. ANSWER:: No, except that they could return to do actsof terror, future acts of terror. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, with respect, paragraph (iv)on page 95 is absolutely irrelevant. CHAIRMAN:: Well that's not the witness's opinion. ANSWER:: I did not read paragraph (iv) but I agree. CHAIRMAN:: The white public had some knowledge that theSecurity Forces were going out and committing these atrocities? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I please cut in here,I don't think we are in general ad idem about the sameparagraph, which one are we referring to Mr Currin? MR CURRIN:: Paragraph (iv) on page 93. MR DU PLESSIS:: Page 93, can we just make sure. MR CURRIN:: You've gone now to page 95. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes that's the paragraph (iv) I was referringto, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, could you just make it clearwhich paragraph we are dealing with? JUDGE WILSON:: Mr Currin referred to paragraph (c) andsaid none of that was relevant and you referred to paragraph (iv)on page 95, which is in paragraph (c). MR DU PLESSIS:: That was the point I made Mr Chairman,thank you very much. QUESTION:: I put it to you that as far as paragraph (iv)is concerned, that what you did was totally excessive as a formof retaliation. It was totally disproportionate with regardto what they had done. 95, that's where we are, ANSWER:: I do believe that this would be applicable. QUESTION:: The action you took in the circumstances wastotally excessive, it was disproportionate in relation to whatthey had done prior to their elimination. ANSWER:: I disagree, where they to return as well-trainedterrorists, then they could have struck anywhere in the Republicand I wouldn't have known how to prevent them from doing so. CHAIRMAN:: ...your prospect of them returning was nilso that hardly is an issue for debate. They were being sentto their death. MR CURRIN:: Precisely, I'm speechless. ANSWER:: This was preventative, we had to eliminate themto prevent that they would come back as trained terrorists. JUDGE WILSON:: But you could have prevented them going,couldn't you? ANSWER:: Maybe once but they would have tried again togo. JUDGE WILSON:: ...because they might have tried againto go, is that the reason you are now advancing Brigadier? ANSWER:: If these persons' purpose was to go for trainingI would never again have been able to prevent them going had theyso intended. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE NGCOBE:: Brigadier did I understand you correctly,paragraph (iv) on page 95, isn't what you are saying that becausethe were going out to be trained, had they been allowed to goout and be trained and if they were to come back, they might haveperhaps killed 1 000 people on their return and therefore it wouldbe better as a preventing measure to eliminate them to preventthat possibility. Isn't that what you are saying? ANSWER:: That is indeed what I am saying. QUESTION:: What criterion did you use in determining ahigh profile activist? ANSWER:: A high profile activist would have been someonewho had made himself guilty with regard to murder, with regardto the recruiting of activists, with regard to intimidation andschool boycotts, who arranged school boycotts as well as consumerboycotts, who organised these, as well as someone who involvedthemselves in necklacings etc. QUESTION:: Brigadier, of all these youngsters, 10 of them,none of them was ever mentioned by yourself to have taken partin any murder, necklacing, intimidation? ANSWER:: I will agree that I did not refer to them inthat way, I did however say that the reason for eliminating wasthat they intended to leave the country to receive training asterrorists. QUESTION:: Brigadier I find it a little bit funny, ifI may use the word, because sometime during the proceedings whenyou were asked about the question of elimination then you saidthose that were eliminated were those activists who were of highprofile and this question was put to you by one of the Committeemembers, Ms Khampepe before the lunch adjournment. Do you rememberthat? ANSWER:: Could you just repeat your question now? QUESTION:: You told this Committee that elimination orthe killing of persons would take place when an activist is identifiedas a high profile activist. Do you remember that? ANSWER:: I completely agree to having said so, howeverI want to repeat again that in this case it was different. Thesepeople were on their way to military training. We believed thatthey would return as well-trained terrorists. QUESTION:: I don't want to repeat what has been said,really for you to say they were "on their way" it isnot correct, you stated clearly that Mamasela invited them orinduced them to go for training... JUDGE WILSON:: No he didn't say that. ANSWER:: I never said that he invited them. QUESTION:: That they were made to go for training by Mamasela,not so? MR DE JAGER:: He also didn't say that. JUDGE WILSON:: He said Mamasela was approached by them. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman may I be allowed to put the questionand hear what the witness will say as to whether Mamasela approachedthem? JUDGE WILSON:: But you are putting it as if that is whathe has said Mr Mpshe, that is what I object to. CHAIRMAN:: He put the question along the lines he doesnot know what Mamasela said to them in any case, all he has isa report from Mamasela. Whether Mamasela induced them or whetherthey begged Mamasela to go is a matter on which we don't haveany evidence at all. QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier would youhave regarded these youngsters as high profile activists? ANSWER:: Not as high profile activists Chair, no. QUESTION:: The Kombi that Mamasela used, do you know it'sregistration numbers? QUESTION:: What colour Kombi was that? ANSWER:: I think it was a blue and white Kombi. QUESTION:: After these youngsters were injected and killed,were there any weapons left in the Kombi or in the neighbourhoodof the Kombi by yourselves? ANSWER:: No I left no weapons there. QUESTION:: Brigadier I know you have said you don't knowwhat this injection contained, but I want to know from you didyou know what the purpose of this injection was? ANSWER:: I also do not know this, this was a militaryoperation from that point. I do not know what they used or whatthe effect of the injections would have been. QUESTION:: ...is it not that you were assisting the militarywing in doing their operations, you were with them? ANSWER:: Yes I was there with them. At the same timeI did not know what they used for these injections. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Sorry Mr Mpshe, was the injection, eventhough you don't know what it was made of and what it containedand so on and so forth, but was it meant to be lethal? In otherwords... ANSWER:: This is a possibility Chair. JUDGE NGCOBE:: What was the purpose of injecting themwith that particular substance, was it to kill them? ANSWER:: I cannot give a definite answer because I donot know what they used, this I believe might have been a possibility. ANSWER:: That I also do not know, the army will have totell you. QUESTION:: ...supposed to be killed through an injection,you don't know that they are supposed to be killed through animpact of the Kombi, you don't know whether they are to be killedby a bomb? ANSWER:: I would rather suspect that they were killedwith the injections. QUESTION:: ...choose that particular method? ANSWER:: I don't think that they would have taken therisk of putting them in a Kombi and blow them up with the possibilitythat someone might have survived and not died. QUESTION:: The idea that the purpose of the injectionwas to kill them never came to your mind at that time? ANSWER:: No I never reflected on it, I thought that theintention was possibly to put them back in the Kombi so that theywould be unable from escaping from the Kombi while this was beingblown up. ANSWER:: The purpose was to kill them, and that's whathappened. QUESTION:: At what stage were they supposed to be killed? ANSWER:: I suspected that this would have been as theKombi was blown up, that was what came to my mind first but Ido realise that it might have been the injection. QUESTION:: ...supposed to be lethal, by the time theywere blown to pieces they would have died, isn't it? I'm notsure whether really... ANSWER:: That would have been the case. QUESTION:: ...whether what you are saying to us is thatthese people were supposed to be killed by a lethal injectionor you are saying these people were supposed to be killed by animpact of the Kombi or whether you are saying they are supposed to be killed by an explosive? I'm not justsure what you are saying there. ANSWER:: My suspicion would be, or I would suspect thatthey would have died because of the injection and that they wouldthen have been blown up which would have implied that if theywere found, there would have been no remaining proof of the injectionsand that it would then have been impossible to point out anyonein that way. The impression that we wanted to create was thatthey had blown themselves up. MS KHAMPEPE:: When the operation was planned and you madecontact with the Zeerust Security Police, did you not discussthe method that would be used to kill the activists? ANSWER:: No, the operation was discussed with CommandantCharl Naude but not in detail, he only said we had to have themavailable at a certain point at a certain time and then he wouldtake it from there. CHAIRMAN:: Who administered the injection? ANSWER:: They were administered by members of Charl Naude'sSpecial Forces but I cannot remember who they were. JUDGE WILSON:: Were any checks made to see if they werearmed before they set off? ANSWER:: I would have thought that Joe Mamasela wouldhave done this, he would not have allowed arms in the Kombi. CHAIRMAN:: Clearly this was a case where people who werenot high profile activists at all have died. ANSWER:: That is the case, they were not high profileactivists. MS KHAMPEPE:: Brigadier is it correct that they died onthe basis of the unverified information from Mr Mamasela? ANSWER:: With regard to the fact that they wanted to receive military training, is that your question? MS KHAMPEPE:: Yes sir you acted on the basis of that information. MR DE JAGER:: Brigadier were there any requests to providetravel documents for them so that they would be able to crossthe border legally? ANSWER:: No such request was received. Mamasela saidthat he would arrange for them to go to Botswana illegally sothat they would then immediately be able to receive politicalasylum and from there they could have been taken for further training. MR DE JAGER:: Did you at any time know that they wouldhave received injections? ANSWER:: No, I did not know this. MR DE JAGER:: The manner of elimination was not discussedbeforehand, is that so? ANSWER:: No it was not discussed beforehand. MR DE JAGER:: The injection could have had one of twoeffects, it could have either anaesthetized them or it could havekilled them? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman before I close up, I just wantto state that by consent with all the parties I want to HANDUP the postmortem reports in this matter. Mr Chairman theseI got from an Inquest that was held in Madiqwe, Inquest No 27/87. Mr Chairman they are not intended for cross-examination by myself,but first to show out the question of proportionality. (2) Toshow the relationship between the number of postmortem reports, that is 10, the number as mentionedby my colleague Mr Brian Currin. (3) To state Mr Chairman furtherthat this Inquest was held in exactly the area where the Kombiwas being blown up, that is Madiqwe. That is all Mr Chairman. MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman may I just correct an impressionthat may have been created earlier on. There was the discussionabout the Kombi blowing up and it was suggested...(end of side1)...as I understood it, it was suggested that there may havebeen a bomb in the Kombi but the Kombi was blown up with petrol. In other words any vehicle can blow up if it hits a wall, ohno it wasn't sorry I misread something, my apologies. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman, the postmortem reports I havejust handed up I have already marked them as EXHIBIT O. CHAIRMAN:: (Inaudible, no microphone). MR MPSHE:: Yes Mr Chairman, I have. MR MPSHE:: ...identification they all say "unknownmale persons" and they just indicate that the bodies werecharred and could not be identified. MS KHAMPEPE:: Brigadier I just want to ask one question. When Mr Mamasela gave a report with regard to the activists,even as to join MK for training, did he indicate the names andthe approximate ages of the activists concerned? ANSWER:: No he didn't Your Honour, he did also not mentiontheir ages. JUDGE NGCOBE:: During that time Brigadier, around 1986,were there a number of young people leaving the country for trainingabroad for military training? JUDGE NGCOBE:: Did that have any influence on you whenyou evaluated Mr Mamasela's information? ANSWER:: Yes it would have influenced me. I was awareof many young people going out of the country and I thought orI was convinced in my heart that I was acting in a preventativefashion. MS KHAMPEPE:: In that case Brigadier it wouldn't havemade any difference if Mr Mamasela had mentioned the ages of theactivists involved, you still would have proceeded with the executionof the operation? Am I correct in concluding that? ANSWER:: I would have continued yes. CHAIRMAN:: Finally, when you received this report andwhen Mamasela assembled these young people, did nobody take itupon themselves to talk to these youngsters to find out why theywant to go overseas, is there any reason why they should not gooverseas. You are dealing with young school children, shouldn'tanybody have talked to these young people? ANSWER:: Mr Chair if I would have talked to them or anyother white person, they would not have listened to us at all. Mamasela could have talked to them, but since he was pretendingto be a terrorist and a member of MK, I think they would havethought it very peculiar if he did speak to them. JUDGE WILSON:: It would have been very intimidating ifyou had taken these young men into the police station, photographedthem, fingerprinted them, told them you had this information aboutthem, couldn't that have persuaded them perhaps not to go? ANSWER:: I do not know Mr Chair, I cannot answer thisquestion but I doubt if it would have influenced them at all. MR DE JAGER:: Mr Mpshe, I don't know what this doctor'sexperience is, and I don't know how charred the bodies are, buthe estimates some of the ages, the last one 20 years of age, thesecond-last one 20 years of age approximately. Then one about40 years of age, 20-25 years, 40-45 years, 30-35 years and anotherone 15 years, another one about 30 years and the first one 15-20years. I don't know, have you got any knowledge of this doctor,have you perhaps met him before, do you know whether he's experiencedor not? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, Ihave not met the doctor, neither can I say anything to his qualifications. As I have indicated I took this out of an Inquest that was beingheld in that area but if the Committee is of the opinion thatthe doctor should be called, I do not think we can have any difficultyin getting the doctor to explain this. I have not met him myself. MR DE JAGER:: I think the applicants could tell us whetherit's common cause that it was youngsters. Perhaps if we couldclear that it would assist us. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I will deal with that in re-examinationand I will make certain points when I deal with that. JUDGE WILSON:: Apart from dealing with it yourself, isn't this a question where there should be some consultation with anexperienced pathologist as to whether the heat would affect theestimation of age. If you are told once somebody has been burnedlike this you can't estimate age, it's an end to the matter. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, Mr Chairman the point I would havewanted to make, the point is two-fold. The first point I wantto make and perhaps I can do it now, the first point I want toplace on record is that we have had indications from Mr Currinabout the ages of these people, I would want to request Mr Currin,where he acts on behalf of these families, if he could try andobtain birth certificates. That would be the easiest thing possibleto ascertain their ages. I can't understand why that was notdone. In any case probably he didn't have time so I'm not pointinga finger to him at all. That's the first point Mr Chairman. At this point in time, there is a lot of confusion about how oldthey really were. The second point is if this document reallyrefers to those people, then clearly from the document itselfit contradicts what was told to the Committee about the ages. The third point I want to make is that this document doesn'tconnect each of the people referred to by Mr Currin to the specificpeople in this document. I don't really know what the worthof this evidence is, I'm placing that on record, I'm going toargue that Mr Chairman that worth or the value of the evidencethat I've dealt with now is really, according to the applicants,nil. CHAIRMAN:: In the long run, when the death of the littleyoungsters is no longer in doubt there might be very little toargue about how they were killed, whether they were killed as a result of an explosion in the Kombi and so on, thatmight be just a minor issue at the end of the day. On the otherpoint, as to the ages of these youngsters I think that can beput beyond doubt and if Mr Currin is in a position to do so, wewill be pleased if he does take steps to obtain their birth certificatesor else call their mothers to give evidence if they are in a positionto tell us precisely when their children were born. MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman I can mention to you that duringthe course of this morning I spoke to every mother and one sisterof all the names that I gave to you and the ages that I put tothe Brigadier were on the basis of what the relatives told me. They are all in this room at the moment and if necessary theycan all be called to assist in verifying ages. So the evidenceis right here if it's needed. CHAIRMAN:: I'm just wondering whether it isn't possibleto obtain their birth certificates because sometimes birth certificatesare a little more reliable than people's memories about when theirchildren were born. MR CURRIN:: Yes, I think mothers generally do know butwe are taking instructions at this very moment to see what sortof documentation we have available. JUDGE WILSON:: Can I make another suggestion and thatis if the Inquest report itself was received, not just the postmortem,that should contain details of where the bodies were found etc.,and may possibly make it clearer whether they were found in aKombi which had been exploded. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman, we're simply interestedin establishing the truth and that is why I accept what Mr Currinsays and I don't for a moment really want to doubt what the people say but we all know that when documentary evidenceis available, one would like to have that and the applicants wouldlike to see the documentary evidence about the ages and theirbirth certificates. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman perhaps to inform the Committeeon this, as I have indicated this forms part of an Inquest thatwas held in Madiqwe to respond to Judge Wilson's issue. TheInquest report was studied by myself, these charred bodies werefound in that Kombi at that place in Nietverdiend. It is inthe Inquest. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I just want to clear thisup, can we accept that this document refers to those 10 peoplewho were in the Kombi? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I would say on the basis of thepoints I have just stated when I was handing them out, it couldbe inferred that these are the people who were in the Kombi. They were 10 in the Kombi and the postmortems are 10 as wellas Mr Chairman the abridged death certificates that don't tellus anything just to say there are also 10. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman then on that basis I acceptwhat my learned friend says, we don't have any real reason todispute this except that I will then argue that if there is noother evidence about the ages then this is the only evidence aboutthe people's ages before this Commission. MR DE JAGER:: There is other evidence about their agesand this is an opinion obviously expressed but not first-handbecause the doctor obviously expresses an opinion but it's indoubt whether he expresses an expert opinion or not in this case. MR DU PLESSIS:: Well to the extent that we have to workwith what we've got Mr Chairman, the only point I'm trying tomake is that is why it's important that the birth certificatesare provided. Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed Mr Chairman? Thank you very much. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Brigadier during the time of this unrest, andwe've heard extensive testimony before this Committee that therehad been such extreme unrest during 85/86, would it under thesecircumstances have been effective in any way to attempt to arrestactivists and to persuade them in a police station and then torelease them? QUESTION:: Would there have been problems with the prosecutionof activists? ANSWER:: Since no one was willing to bring testimony againstanyone, there were problems. QUESTION:: Would this route then have been an effectiveroute if you wanted to persuade people to desist from their activities? JUDGE WILSON:: ...impressed about your failure to attemptto get any evidence by using things like tape recorders and othersuch devices which were well-known to the police in those days. You keep on saying people wouldn't give evidence against themand that excuses everything, there were many other things thatthe police could do, weren't there? You tapped telephones, youopened mail, you frequently taped conversations didn't you? ANSWER:: If we placed such testimony before Court, Chair, then I do not believe that we would have been able to achieveconvictions. MS KHAMPEPE:: Brigadier Cronje, didn't you have EmergencyRegulations that you could have relied on? ANSWER:: Again we would have had to motivate the detention,we would have had to give reasons and this would have had to persuademy head office, and we did not have such motivations available. QUESTION:: Brigadier were you able or would you have beenable, with regard to other activists who had left the countryfor training, would you have been able to arrest them and detainthem in terms of Security Legislation or in terms of the existingLegislation against them? QUESTION:: Brigadier, were you aware of all of the activistswho did leave the country for training? QUESTION:: As far as you can remember, broadly speaking,how many people - activists - left the country for training duringthat time? ANSWER:: During 86 the exact number is not clear but itwould have been a great number. QUESTION:: Brigadier, I want us to return to the politicalpurposes indicated on page 91 of your application. The particularaction against these persons, you have given testimony that theywere well-known comrades, or rather there has been testimony beforethe Committee that they were comrades. Would you have consideredyour actions as a kind of intimidation to prevent other persons to attempt to gain militarytraining abroad like these comrades would have? QUESTION:: Would that have been one of the reasons whyyou acted against these activists in this manner? QUESTION:: Would it have been possible for you with regardto all activists who had received military training outside ofthe borders of the country, would you have been able to act againstthem in this manner? ANSWER:: Could you repeat the question? QUESTION:: With regard to all activists who wanted toreceive such training, would you be able to act against them inthis manner? QUESTION:: On page 92, paragraph (iv) it reads "Elimination usually took place in the case of high profileor extremely effective activists whose detention in terms of theSecurity Legislation would only have given momentum to the liberationstruggle." You used the word "gewoonlik", "usually",if there were other circumstances would there have been eliminationsof person who were not high profile activists? ANSWER:: Yes it could have happened, although it was notcommon practice. QUESTION:: Returning to this case, would this have beena case which you considered justifiable under the circumstances? ANSWER:: Under the circumstances that they were leavingthe country for military training, I did consider it QUESTION:: Brigadier would you say that the Security Forcesand the Security Police would have been able in any way to stopany activists who returned after such training from committingsuch acts of terror, would you have been able to stop them? QUESTION:: If these activists received military trainingoutside the borders of the country, would you have consideredit possible or probable that they would have been able to returnto the country to commit acts of terror? QUESTION:: Brigadier on page 93 we consider the impactthat these acts might have had on white voters. What would yousay would have been the feeling evoked, among white people, ifthey heard that a Kombi of terrorists blew themselves up? ANSWER:: They would have thought that these people werepoorly trained and that the Security Forces were able to win thewar with ease against such poorly trained persons. QUESTION:: Were the voters or most of the voters reallythat stupid, didn't they think that it might have been the police? ANSWER:: Certainly many of them thought that it mighthave been the police who did these acts, or some of these acts. QUESTION:: Brigadier would that have contributed to afeeling of trust in the National Party Government? ANSWER:: Yes it would have created an atmosphere of trustin the National Party as well as the Security Police and the SecurityForces. QUESTION:: Brigadier on page 94, you've already giventestimony with regard to the first part but then with regard to the prevention of acts of terror, if we can page over to page95 (iv), could you just read the paragraph? ANSWER:: "Where activists went for training eitherinside or outside the country, they would necessarily have beeneliminated to prevent that at a later stage they would be ableto destabilise the country and its people by means of acts ofterror such as bombing attacks on both the Security Forces aswell as soft targets. As soon as an activist received training,he was in a different class from a normal activist and his knowledgeand skill were equal to that of the Security Police, he wouldthen have been able to act far more effectively in military operations." QUESTION:: Brigadier would you, in the course of planningthis operation, have been able to exclude the possibility thatthese persons would have been able to return to the country trainedand able to be responsible for the death either of military personnel,police officers or normal civilians? ANSWER:: I could not exclude this. QUESTION:: Did you consider this to be a possibility? QUESTION:: Brigadier are you able to remember what thereaction had been of these persons when they were injected? ANSWER:: I am unable to remember because they were immediatelyput back in the Kombi. QUESTION:: Brigadier you've been asked many questionswith regard to what Mamasela would have been able to say to theseactivists and you have given testimony that Mamasela had instructionsnot to convince people to go for training, but that they had rather to volunteer. Did he report this to youin this way? QUESTION:: Did anyone work alongside Mamasela in thiswork as he talked to these activists and planned the entire thingwith them? QUESTION:: Would there have been anyone who along withMamasela had spoken to these activists to arrange for them toget into the Kombi and to leave the country for training. Wouldanyone have gone along with Mamasela or did he do this work onhis own? ANSWER:: I cannot remember Chair. QUESTION:: Then Brigadier if Mamasela had been calledas a witness, would he have been able to make clear what exactlyhe said to these activists? ANSWER:: Yes he would be able to do so. QUESTION:: You cannot remember whether anyone else wasinvolved. Is there anyone you could mention who might be ableto give further testimony with regard to this aspect of the matter? ANSWER:: No, I do not know of anyone else who could doso. QUESTION:: Brigadier with regard to that which Mr Currinhas placed on record with regard to these young people being comrades,what would your conclusion have been with regard to the informationwhich Mamasela gave to you with regard to their involvement? ANSWER:: It would seem to corroborate his information. QUESTION:: Brigadier would you have considered it a possibilitythat if these activists were to be trained as MK soldiers thatthey would have been able to return to the country to come and do normal work in South Africa, to returnto their families or did you rather consider it a possibilitythat they would return to wage war? ANSWER:: They would have returned to wage war. QUESTION:: Brigadier, Mr Currin during the cross-examinationstated towards you that your action against these persons wasbeyond all proportion with regard to their age, which is underdispute or at least is unclear before the Committee with regardto their age, and that in view of their actions as against theirelimination that this would have been entirely beyond all proportion. I want to ask you whether you considered the fact that theywere on their way to receive military training that they wouldhave returned to the country to wage war, under these circumstanceswould you have considered it beyond all proportion to take thisaction or would you have considered it justified? ANSWER:: I considered it justified. QUESTION:: Could you motivate this somewhat? ANSWER:: As I have said the wanted to leave the countryto receive military training. If we managed to stop them thenat a later stage they would have left because out of experiencewe knew that if that person truly intended to receive militarytraining, it was not possible to stop the person. QUESTION:: Brigadier, was only Mamasela involved in theso-called recruiting of person for military training outside ofthe country or were there many other persons involved in thiskind of activity? ANSWER:: Mamasela did not recruit anyone. QUESTION:: Let me put it to you in this way. Were many other person involved, not only from you but from the ANC, fromthe liberation movements etc., were involved in recruiting MKsoldiers? ANSWER:: Yes, there were many such persons. QUESTION:: What would you have considered if we assumethat the testimony is correct that these persons left voluntarilyto receive training, would you have considered it to be a likelihoodthat some other person, say from the liberation movements, wouldhave been able to recruit these young people for military training? ANSWER:: Yes it would have been highly likely. JUDGE NGCOBE:: How young some of the soldiers appear tobe north of us in Northern Africa... ANSWER:: I did note this Chair. I can say to you thatfor two years I waged war in the previous Rhodesia and that forsix months I served in the previous South West Africa. ThereI saw people of these very ages who were very able soldiers. JUDGE NGCOBE:: In Liberia I certainly saw some youngerthan that, isn't that so? ANSWER:: It would be the case Chair. QUESTION:: Brigadier in your knowledge with regard tocomrades and activists involved in the unrest, would there havebeen of them, who at this very young age at 15, 16 or 17 years,would they...(end of side 2)...Brigadier I know you will not havepersonal knowledge of this question, but from history can youremember the age of some boys who fought in the Anglo-Boer War? ANSWER:: This was somewhat before my time, I wouldn'tknow. QUESTION:: Did you read anything about this. MR ?:: If it might remind you my father was 13 years ofage. MR DU PLESSIS:: That was the point I wanted to make, thankyou Chair. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...the youngsters in question were susceptibleto enticement if there was such an enticement by Mr Mamasela andthat is the problem. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes I realise that, I will argue thatpoint, that is why I asked the question about how many other witnessesbefore this Committee can give evidence about that, otherwisethe only evidence before this Committee will be Brigadier's evidence. QUESTION:: Brigadier would there have been any possibility,you have seen these young people in the Kombi with Mamasela andfrom what you observed, was there any possibility or did it appearas if they were being forced by Mamasela to be in this Kombi withhim? QUESTION:: If these young people were being taken outunder normal circumstances by the liberation movements for trainingabroad, how long would such training normally have lasted, doyou know? ANSWER:: It would last for anything from three monthsto a year, three months would have been a sort of a crash course. QUESTION:: So in that case Brigadier, would these activistshave left their homes voluntarily to leave abroad for three monthsor longer for training purposes? ANSWER:: This was the nature of the information availableto me. QUESTION:: When you arrived on the scene were they quite ANSWER:: Yes they were rather inebriated at that time. QUESTION:: So you would not have been able to have a conversationwith them to determine whether they were in fact voluntarily ontheir way or not? ANSWER:: No, but I had been driving behind them from Pretoriaand they were in a lively mood, they were laughing. QUESTION:: Could this be because of the beer they weredrinking? ANSWER:: Well, they only received their beer en routenot when I saw them at the very beginning. QUESTION:: Brigadier can you remember at that time, nowwe were all subject to military training, can you remember fromwhat age the youngest person was allowed to join the SAP or theSADF? QUESTION:: Can you remember whether persons who left Std8 were taken into the army or the police? ANSWER:: In the police yes, but I don't know about theSADF. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON:: We have heard a lot about Mamasela doingthis and Mamasela doing that, how long had he been working withyou? ANSWER:: Mamasela worked with me from the beginning in1983 until in 1987 when I left the police force. JUDGE WILSON:: What was he before he joined you? ANSWER:: Do you mean before he came to Vlakplaas? ANSWER:: He had initially been an informant, he was thentrained as a terrorist and then he returned to Vlakplaas to JUDGE WILSON:: He was a double agent? ANSWER:: Well we had sent him out for training. JUDGE WILSON:: He pretended to them that he was a supporterof theirs, he was a double agent. JUDGE WILSON:: He must have realised that he would bewatched carefully by you? ANSWER:: Indeed that would have been the case. JUDGE WILSON:: We've heard here what happened to someother agent whom you thought had turned against you? ANSWER:: Yes, although I can say to you that my experienceof Mamasela was that he was entirely loyal. MR DE JAGER(?):: Do I understand you that Mamasela hadnever previously been a member of the ANC, that from the verybeginning he was a trained policeman who then infiltrated theANC? ANSWER:: This was a previous criminal who we turned aroundand then he went for training, he had been an informant. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...neutralised by the Security Force tobecome an askari(?), in your documents you've mentioned him asan askari. ANSWER:: He did work as an askari at Vlakplaas. MS KHAMPEPE:: Is it not common knowledge that askariswere previously members of the ANC? ANSWER:: Not necessarily Chair. MS KHAMPEPE:: Can you please explain to us what an askariis then? ANSWER:: An askari would normally be someone who had beenan ANC or PAC terrorist, who was then captured, taken captive,who might have given testimony in court or whom we were able to indoctrinate to such an extent that the person decidednow to rather work for the police than for the ANC. MS KHAMPEPE:: ...the difference to the proposition thatI've just put to you? ANSWER:: Mamasela was in a different category, we senthim out to receive training he didn't go out to receive trainingon his own. He was never really a member of the ANC. CHAIRMAN:: This word "askari" is it an Englishword, and Afrikaans word or one of the African languages? ANSWER:: I would imagine that the word comes from somewherein Africa. It's a word used elsewhere in Africa for, I don'tknow if it was the British who used it, who gave them the name,but there were people known as askaris elsewhere in Africa. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman perhaps I can enlighten you. There are people here who know about that, it's apparently aterm that was used in Nigeria in a military context. I'm not100% sure, I can find out a bit more and perhaps enlighten youtomorrow. CHAIRMAN:: Yes, thank you very much. What I meant wasit an Afrikaans term or something like that? MR DU PLESSIS:: No it's a term from a black language inNigeria apparently, that's what my information is. Mr Chairmanmay I be afforded the opportunity to ask the witness one questionflowing from the questions of the Committee? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Brigadier, the term "askari" wasit used in a broader sense at Vlakplaas, so what I'm implyingis if you said "askari", in which you also have includedsomeone like Mamasela who had never initially been an ANC terrorist but whorather was working with the other askaris? ANSWER:: Yes, we simply would have referred to them allas askaris, it was a broad term in that context. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman, we are told that the word "askari"is the Swahili word for soldier. CHAIRMAN:: I am indebted to you Mr Currin, thank you,thank you very much. Mr Mpshe before we adjourn is there anythingyou wish to say about what you propose doing? MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes Mr Chairman, dependingon whether the Committee would like to sit the full-blast likeevery ordinary day tomorrow, on a Friday Mr Chairman, if the Committeeis intending to sit like on all the other days then we will continuewith this matter, finalise it tomorrow morning and start withthe Kwandabele 9 and if possible, include the killing of Sibia. CHAIRMAN:: Some members of the Committee have planes tocatch in the afternoon and I think that we must work on the basisof a normal morning's hearing until about lunch time. If, withthe co-operation of your colleagues, it is possible to see whetherwe can tackle a matter which is capable of being completed inthat time it would be desirable. MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman that will be done then, it willbe this matter finalised tomorrow then we will get on to Sibia,it can be finalised tomorrow by 1 o'clock. CHAIRMAN:: Perhaps tomorrow morning before we begin youwill give us a full report of just exactly what steps have beentaken to inform people who are affected by the evidence that hasbeen given and maybe if this matter has to be adjourned, to ensurethat before it resumes on another occasion they are all informed. MR MPSHE:: That will be done tomorrow morning Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Mr Currin what are the chances of you gettingbirth certificates in respect of these young people? MR CURRIN:: We already have collected quite a number,we are in the process straight after this to make photocopiesand we are arranging to get what we can tomorrow. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you very much that will be very helpful. JUDGE WILSON:: Speaking for myself Mr Currin, I can appreciatethat it may well be difficult to get birth certificates of peoplewho were born a long time ago, but I think we would also appreciateif there is any other documentary evidence, school reports oranything of that nature, I think Mr Du Plessis would accept that. It doesn't have to be formal documents. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS - END OF DAY 7 MR MPSHE:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we didnot finalise the Nietverdiend matter, it is a continuation thereofthis morning and my colleague Mr Brian Currin is...as I have indicatedwe have not finalised and the next applicant is to testify onthe Nietverdiend matter. Captain Hechter I am told. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, perhaps before he proceeds,we have compiled lists of victims and South African police membersas well as other persons referred to in the applications. Theonly application I was not able to do that is that of CaptainHechter because of the fact that the information that was storedon a stiffie, got damaged, so that information is gone. In respectof all four the other applicants we've compiled a list of allthe names mentioned in respect of the four applications. I do not think, however,Mr Chairman but I haven't checked it, that there will be othernames mentioned in Captain Hechter's application that were notmentioned in the other applications as all the matters where nameswere mentioned in Captain Hechter's application were dealt withby other witnesses as well. In all probability those will beall the names. CHAIRMAN:: This is one of the Exhibits, it is incompleteat present as it stands? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN:: Is there a likelihood of it being completed? MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes I will endeavour, you will see thesecond paragraph in the letter says that we will endeavour assoon as possible to complete that. QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter yesterdayyou heard the testimony of Brigadier Cronje regarding this matter. Mr Chairman, Captain's Hechter application you will find thaton page 36. Mr Chairman I again just want to refer you to thefact that it should be "murder" and not "attemptedmurder" on page 36. Captain Hechter, is there any aspectin Brigadier Cronje's testimony that you disagree with? QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, there are however a coupleof aspects which you can elaborate on. Let's start with thefirst aspect, that is the actions of Joe Mamasela and what hewould have said to these activists and your view of Joe Mamasela. Could you please elaborate on that? ANSWER:: Mr Chair, what Joe told these children I wouldof course not be able to repeat to you, but as I had already gottento know Joe Mamasela in 1986 he was a very intelligent and pleasantperson, a person for whom at that time I had tremendous respect. He was an excellent operative and in my view his loyalty wascomplete. There was no doubt with regard to his loyalty, hespoke of the white and the black "boers" and consideredhimself as a black boer who entirely identified with that sideof the struggle. He never received any money for any of hisactions, he did however attempt to borrow money from me, but Idenied that because we did not work for money we were involvedin a struggle and I told him that if that was his view, he wouldhave to go. As I have said, Mamasela is a highly intelligentand extremely well trained operative. He is an operative bynature. QUESTION:: Captain would there, at that time, have beenany reason to doubt that which Mamasela told Brigadier Cronjewith regard to his actions towards the activists? ANSWER:: Not at all, Joe came across as an entirely honestperson at that time, honest of course in our sense or towardsus, he did his work without any oversight and the previous commandingofficers who were in charge of him, I believe in the West Rand,thought so much of him that at that time they purchased a vehiclefor him from the secret State fund. He obtained petrol witha private card and he had complete access to the vehicle for hisprivate use. Joe never, as far as we have been able to determine,abused this privilege. JUDGE WILSON:: He wasn't working for money but he gota free vehicle and a card for petrol, over and above his salary,is that the position? ANSWER:: That is positively the case, we all worked underthis arrangement. We would have a State vehicle, a normal salaryand in addition a vehicle with which to operate which would thenhave been registered in his name so that it would not be possibleto trace the vehicle by means of the registration number to hisplace of employment. QUESTION:: Could I then ask you Captain, with regard tothe age of the activists, are you able to remember, you know thatMr Cronje has given testimony that persons of 18 years old didserve in the SADF and the SAP, would it have been possible thatwhite children at that time would have been able to serve at ayounger age? ANSWER:: I do believe that Brigadier Cronje has made amistake, there were persons from the age of 16 who were takenup, for instance as military servicemen in the SADF, that is ofthe age of 16. QUESTION:: These would then have been persons who leftschool at about Std 8? MR CURRIN:: May I just help my learned friend and puton record that we're not intending to dispute that children areand have been involved in war situations. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes Mr Chairman I realise that, I realiseMr Currin's position but I do have an obligation to place certainfacts before the Committee on which I will argue at a later stagein respect of the importance of this issue. So it does not necessarilyconfront specifically just Mr Currin but it deals with the wholesituation. QUESTION:: Captain Hechter, your experience at that timeduring the unrest of persons involved in such unrest, would yoube able to give us a little more information with regard to theirages, the ages of comrades and what your experience would havebeen in this regard? ANSWER:: During the unrest I had at a certain time beeninvolved in a riot squad unit who dealt particularly with theunrest situation throughout South Africa. At a certain stagein Atteridgeville, when I was still a very young constable, westill used the old Hippo vehicles, we came around a corner andthere were two vehicles parked next to the road. A group ofnot youth but children, and I doubt if any of them were olderthan 14, were at that time busy pouring out petrol over thesevehicles. My Commanding Officer at that time, a Captain, butI do not remember who he was, gave instructions to shoot on thesepeople. I then told him "don't do that, don't do that theseare children". We sat down and drove off. The childrenthen dispersed rapidly when they noted us. A block away fromthis incident, both of these vehicles were in flames. At thattime, and this must have been in the years of 1976 and later inthe 80's, the youth were politicised and activised to such anextent that they had no regard for property or life left. Briefly,after I was stationed with the Security Branch, I was given theinstruction or I had rather been requested by the Shoshunguwepolice station, I was the service officer at that time, to comeout. There was a person arrested known as "Naughty"and this person had the entire Shoshunguwe area in the palm ofhis hand. If he would say that there was a consumer boycott,then that consumer boycott would have occurred. If he gave instructionsfor a school boycott they would have occurred. He ruled the entirearea with an iron hand. I still don't entirely understand theentire story of activists and people like that, but then I wentthere and I visited Naughty in the cell. On my way down thecorridor I saw a young boy and then I walked back to the Sergeantand I asked him where this person is that I have to see becausethere was only a child in the back. The Sergeant then laughedand told me that this is indeed the person. I walked over, Ispoke to Naughty, and I asked him if he was the terror of Shoshunguwe. At that time he was 15 years of age and he ruled Shoshunguwewith an iron hand. I do not know if he received his instructionsfrom older persons, from adults, but at that time I was very inexperiencedmyself. I had an interview with him and then returned to myoffice and I was flabbergasted, I could hardly believe that aperson of such a young age could be so deeply involved in politicalactivity and could exercise such a degree of power. I was atthat time already an adult but I had not realised that any personcould exercise this degree of power over others. QUESTION:: Captain, your recollections with regard toactivists who left for military training, in your knowledge andI am only asking about what you can remember generally speaking,would you be able to remember whether these were normally personsof an older age or a younger age? ANSWER:: These were normally youths, comrades, activistsand the like who left the country were generally younger than20. I can remember a particular incident in Zeerust where ofthese youths at that time of the age of 14, left the country andreturned two years later, and if my memory does not fail me they then killed people in the Western Transvaaland were hunted down by the police. Two of them were shot deadand the other three were arrested and then it became clear whattheir ages were. We would be able to refer to this case if thatis of interest to the Committee and we would be able to tracethis case because the three of them were charged. At the timeof their action they were 16 and they had left the country fortraining at the age of 14. QUESTION:: Mr Chairman...also in argument, there is areported decision on that. If you will just bear with me MrChairman. Captain Hechter would you be able to tell the Committeeunder these circumstances, or the circumstances under which Mamaselaoperated, would Mamasela have enticed these persons or would hehave acted as per the testimony of Brigadier Cronje? ANSWER:: This would be an opinion concerning somethingwhere I was not present. I do know that Mamasela at that timewas very positive but I'm afraid that I would not really be ableto express an opinion in this regard. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN QUESTION:: May it please you Sir. Captain, Naughty thatyou referred to, is that Naughty Msisi? ANSWER:: Yes, Naughty Msisi that's correct. QUESTION:: Naughty Msisi was a client of mine for aboutfour years. You very effectively detained him on many occasions,he was arrested, he was charged, he was in and out of jail, isthat correct? ANSWER:: I would assume so, one does not keep close record. I do remember that he impressed me considerably. QUESTION:: I may tell you, I saw him recently and he worksfor an insurance company, a very respectable young South Africanman today in the new South Africa. That is the way in whichthe Riot Squad and the Security Police dealt with the vast majorityof the comrades. ANSWER:: Chair we can argue in this regard but that isthe case, the degree of or the number of deaths, the people whowere forced to eat eggs, the number of schools that were not attendedbecause of Naughty Msisi's actions, the number of people for whomhe caused tremendous unease because of the circumstances. In1986 of course the entire situation became far more intense. Consumer boycotts became violent, the entire country was consumedin violence. We had then to act decisively against these people. QUESTION:: ...gave the police powers, as well as the InternalSecurity Act, which were used very, very effectively in the townshipsto deal with the situation in the townships and that is what thepolice generally did. I put that to you. ANSWER:: I entirely understand what you are saying butthe situation had become of such a nature that it was no longerpossible to act in this way with regard to these people. Butthis is not in the case of every person, every second or thirdperson in the black community was an activist or a comrade andif we look in terms of percentages how many people were treatedin a rough manner these would be the extreme cases on their side. Only those persons who went entirely beyond all control, personswho committed arson and true acts of violence, as far as we coulddetermine, these persons who were the real fermenters(?) of violenceand then the only possibility remaining for us was to counter violence with violence, with the purpose at that time to keepour leaders in power. QUESTION:: The measures which you took in this instanceto trap nine or 10 young schoolboys into believing that they weregoing for training as then potential soldiers and to then killthem, was totally unjustifiable even in the circumstances thatprevailed. I just want to tell you that that is what we aregoing to argue. ANSWER:: It is of course your right to argue in this casebut what is important for us was that there were persons of theage of 14 who left the country, who returned and who generallykilled mainly their own people, black people. I can accept entirelythat you would argue in this way. QUESTION:: To blow up the Kombi, who put that together? ANSWER:: This was also done by Special Forces, I had noknowledge of it at that time. QUESTION:: All the information that you got regardingthe victims in this instance was from Joe Mamasela and you haveno personal knowledge of what they had done? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE WILSON:: There are two matters I want to ask youabout. The first is, we have been told that Mamasela was drivinga Kombi that these people were travelling in? JUDGE WILSON:: Where did the Kombi come from? ANSWER:: Mr Chair as far as I can remember, BrigadierCronje gave testimony that he made this Kombi available. JUDGE WILSON:: Was it one of your Kombis? ANSWER:: It wasn't one which we normally used in the Branch,I cannot exactly remember or know where Brigadier Cronje would have obtained it, but it was not one we generallyused. JUDGE WILSON:: As I understand it, no attempt was madeto remove the chassis No., the engine No., or anything of thatnature? ANSWER:: I would not be able to give testimony in thisregard because I don't know. JUDGE WILSON:: While you were there it wasn't done? ANSWER:: Not in my presence no, it wasn't done in mypresence. JUDGE WILSON:: The second point is you've told us thatMamasela was given a motor vehicle, paid out of secret State funds? ANSWER:: That is the case Chair. JUDGE WILSON:: Were you given a vehicle? ANSWER:: Yes but it wasn't paid out of the secret fund. This was a vehicle which had to be referred back to the State,it could be traced. It was only an official vehicle which Iused. JUDGE WILSON:: Do you know of any other things that wereprovided or bought with secret State funds? ANSWER:: No Chair, there were vehicles which were givento some of the police out of the secret funds, this was indeedthe case. JUDGE WILSON:: Some of the police in your Branch? ANSWER:: No not in our Branch, these would have been peoplewho worked under deep cover. Their vehicle would had to havebeen registered in their names so that if anyone traced the registrationnumber they would not be able to trace it back to the police. JUDGE WILSON:: ...I have is why it should have to comefrom secret funds. I can understand registering the vehicle in theirname but that can be done if it's bought openly and aboveboard,can't it? ANSWER:: I will not be able to help you in this regard. JUDGE WILSON:: Mamasela was paid a salary wasn't he? ANSWER:: He was indeed paid a salary, a full police salary. JUDGE WILSON:: ...do you know that he had been a criminal? ANSWER:: I did not know sir, I only discovered this inlater years. He only told me how well trained a terrorist hewas, we co-operated for three years, we worked very closely togetherand he only told me how very well trained he was. He was veryproud of the way in which he acted, but he never told me thathe was a criminal previously. JUDGE WILSON:: He told you how well trained a terroristhe was, what do you mean by that? ANSWER:: He told me that he was sent out for trainingand that he was very well trained with regard to his knowledgeof East Block arms. At that time I was brand new at the SecurityBranch and his knowledge of the AK and the Makarov and the handgrenadesand all of these arms were indeed very excellent. ANSWER:: Yes that kind of military stuff. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS QUESTION:: Thank you Mr Chairman I'll be very short. Captain what was Mamasela's rank? ANSWER:: At that time he was a Sergeant. QUESTION:: Captain, as far as you can recall were thereactivists who took part in serious acts who did not leave thecountry voluntarily for training, can you remember just ANSWER:: I don't think so, I think everyone who left thecountry, left voluntarily they grasped the opportunity. QUESTION:: No, were there activists who did not go fortraining? ANSWER:: Indeed, many of them did not leave for militarytraining they continued with the struggle here. QUESTION:: ...instructions from Brigadier Cronje thatthe Kombi that was used was what they called an "Article3 Kombi", it was as I understand it, and there was evidenceto that effect, a stolen Kombi which was returned and was utilisedby the police in terms of normal legislation. That was the Kombithat was used. Those are my instructions. JUDGE WILSON:: So it would have been easy to identifythat it was a vehicle that was being used by the police, if itwas done officially, if it was handed over to them officially,or are they saying they got stolen property handed over to themwith no record kept? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman my instructions are that itwouldn't have been easy to link it to the police. JUDGE WILSON:: One wonders why, stolen property, presumablyhe police keep a record of in case the owner arrives? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, my information and my instructionsare that these were stolen vehicles which were not claimed bythe owners, which were taken back by the police, they weren'tclaimed by their owners and they were never registered on thename of the South African Police. JUDGE WILSON:: But a record should be available of stolengoods that come into the hands of the police surely? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman my instructions are that normally with these stolen vehicles, the chassis numbers and theother numbers would, in any event because of the fact that theywere stolen, be taken off. Mr Chairman obviously we're speculatingnow about various situations and possibilities. I just wantedto clear that up as far as I could Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS MS KHAMPEPE:: Captain Hechter you wouldn't be able tounequivocally state that some of the activists who left the countryfor training were not persuaded by some of the MK people who werein the country or ANC officials? ANSWER:: I would not be able to give you an answer inthis regard Chair because I wasn't present when they recruitedthese persons. I do however know that recruitment was a dailyoccurrence by these people. MS KHAMPEPE:: Thank you, I'm glad you used the word "recruitment". MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, I just want to raise onepoint, I'm not sure if the answer that was given now or that thequestion was correctly understood. As I understood the answer,and I just want to clear this up, as I understood the answer theanswer did not refer to something that Mamasela did, but it referredto what normal ...[interjection]...yes thank you, then we understoodit right, thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman I have no furtherwitnesses on this aspect. MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman before I call a witness, I justwould like to inform the Committee that we have succeeded in gettingbirth certificates or baptismal certificates I believe from everyone. At the moment we're busy sorting them out because we got most of them about half an hour ago andarranging to make the necessary copies. We are also liaisingwith the office of the Attorney-General to make sure that theones we submit here are in fact related to the Nietverdiend andnot to the Kwandabele 9 because apparently there has been a littlebit of confusion. Those copies will be available, properlysorted and verified, within the course of the next half an hour. I would just like some guidance from the Committee, would yourequire five copies for the Committee or is one copy of each certificatesufficient? CHAIRMAN:: One will be enough. MR CURRIN:: Thank you, we will ensure that you get oneand we will also make copies for our colleagues here. As youaware, there are nine or 10 victims involved here, in order toexpedite the proceedings we've arranged with the RehabilitationCommittee to bring the necessary forms here this morning so thatthe mothers, the relatives, can complete the forms and we needn'tgo through the process of getting all that information in theseproceedings. We have, however, arranged and spoken to the parentsand the mother of Abraham Makolane will testify on behalf of allthe family members as to how they feel about the proceedings andabout the applications. Could we then please have Martha Makolaneto come forward? CHAIRMAN:: ...to arrange for somebody to give supportif it's necessary. What are her full names Mr Currin? MR CURRIN:: Her names are Martha Makolane and she is themother of Abraham Makolane. QUESTION:: Mrs Makolane I'm going to ask questions toyou and you must answer the question as it arises and then waitfor the next question. Is that clear? QUESTION:: Is it correct that the other victims, mothersand one sister of the other victims appointed you to speak ontheir behalf as to how you feel as a group about these proceedings? ANSWER:: That's true, I've been asked by the relativesbut I'm not able to forgive. QUESTION:: Have you, besides not being able to forgiveand now you're speaking on behalf of everybody, they all saidthat to you? QUESTION:: You've heard about the Truth Commission. ANSWER:: Yes, I did hear about the Truth Commission. QUESTION:: You know that the purpose of the Truth Commissionis to attempt to foster reconciliation in South Africa? ANSWER:: I don't have the conciliation as they have takenthem from my place to the place where they have killed them, Iwant them to go and fetch them where they've left them to bringthem home so that we will be able to bury them peacefully and,they have killed our children so they want us to forgive them. QUESTION:: When did you and your associates, the othermothers, learn about the death of your sons? ANSWER:: We started to hear last week about the deathof our children. QUESTION:: Was that the first time you heard about it? ANSWER:: May the speaker repeat the question? QUESTION:: Who informed you and the other people? ANSWER:: We were told by CID's from Pretoria. QUESTION:: What did they tell you? ANSWER:: They told us our children were killed near Botswanaand they were bombed there. QUESTION:: Did they have any ideas where the bodies are? ANSWER:: They didn't tell us about their bodies. QUESTION:: What you would really like is to try and findthose bodies so that your children can be properly buried? ANSWER:: Yes we want those bodies as they have taken themfrom Mamelodi, they have got to go back and fetch them from thatplace and bring them back to Mamelodi so that we will be ableto bury them. QUESTION:: If you can do that, would that in some wayassist you in dealing with the terrible trauma that you have experienced? ANSWER:: Maybe we will be emotionally stable because sincethen we have been all searching for our bodies and we have notburied our children and what would satisfy us I'm not able toforgive any policeman who have done that act. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN CHAIRMAN:: Did your son tell you where he was going whenhe left home the last time? CHAIRMAN:: What did you do when he didn't come home? ANSWER:: I searched. I went to the police station. I went to the mortuaries. I was not able to find him. CHAIRMAN:: Did you not learn from his friends where hecould have gone to? ANSWER:: The people he went with are his only friends. QUESTIONS BEING ASKED BUT INAUDIBLE AS MICROPHONE NOT ON CHAIRMAN:: You might as well do it now. JUDGE WILSON:: If you can just tell us. MR CURRIN:: Her son was Abraham Makolane. He was 17at the time of his disappearance and he was a student at the JKekana High School in Mamelodi in Std 8. Is there any more informationyou need? CHAIRMAN:: Does he have a father? MR MPSHE:: His father died in 1975. COMMITTEE BEING ADDRESSED - INAUDIBLE - SPEAKER'S MIKE NOTON CHAIRMAN:: Can you throw any light on that at all Mr Currin? MR CURRIN:: According to the office of the Attorney-Generalit's going to be a matter of assumption and evidence at the trial. They have gone to great pains to try and establish the identityof the children who were in that bus at the time and the listof names that we were given is really that which they seem tohave put together on what they've got. If we were to try andprove it, I think we'd have to call evidence from the office ofthe Attorney-General. CHAIRMAN:: Would none of the parents be able to give evidencethat they saw their sons getting into a Kombi and taking theirbelongings and leaving, waving goodbye to their parents or anythinglike that? MR CURRIN:: They all say that, they all say that in thisparticular instance and on the same date. CHAIRMAN:: We have no evidence about that, nobody hastold us that they saw their sons all getting into a particular vehicle and leaving, what time they left, who else was presentwhen they left, we don't have any of that information. CHAIRMAN:: If any one of the parents did see that andcan give that evidence about the time of the departure, how manyof them were there, whether she recognised any others apart fromher own particular son and matters of that kind should be canvassed. MR CURRIN:: Yes, we have some of that information. Someof the parents are not sure of the exact date and also when childrenwere taken away, when children left for Kwandabele in some instancesa white Kombi was also used, in fact in many instances a whiteKombi was used, so that doesn't necessarily determine which incidentthey were involved in, but what we can do is go through what we'vegot if we could have a short adjournment and also have furtherdiscussions with the office of the Attorney-General and try andpresent a summary? CHAIRMAN:: Yes, we would like a fuller picture of thecircumstances leading up to the departure of these people. Someparents must have been present, they must have said goodbye totheir children or their children must have said goodbye to them. Parents would have been able to say how many there were andgenerally ... MR CURRIN:: Yes, we do have some of that information,we were going to lead all the parents... CHAIRMAN:: Well you don't have to lead all the parents,if there is one parent who can give that evidence? MR CURRIN:: Yes, I think as I say our original plan wasto do that but then after considering we thought we would try and facilitate the proceedings and go this route. You are quitecorrect, as a result of that change of strategy that evidenceisn't on record. What we can do is now try and, if we couldhave a 10 minute adjournment, I'm sure we could get it all togetherand get one parent to present that information. JUDGE NGCOBE:: Before we do that, Mr Du Plessis are yousaying that there is some dispute about whether or not Mr Currin'sclients would have been the correct victims? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, as I have pointed out atthe beginning of these hearings, we are not sure about the interpretationof the Act pertaining to evidence given in this forum in respectof possible later proceedings. I cannot therefore make admissionsor accept certain facts which might become very important laterand which might not be excluded from a future criminal trial andit is on that basis that I want to place that on record. Forpurposes of these hearings the importance pertains to the questionof the ages of the people. JUDGE NGCOBE:: If, for the purpose of these proceedings,you are not willing to admit that these are the victims and ifthat becomes an issue, I hope you are aware of the profound impactand influence this is going to have on these proceedings. Oneof the problems is that you would be asking, or your clients wouldbe asking for amnesty in respect of the people that you don'tadmit have been the people placed before us and it could alsohave an impact on whether or not we have given notice in termsof the Act to the correct people. That, in turn, brings intoquestion as to whether or not procedural requirements have beencomplied with. MR DU PLESSIS:: With respect Mr Chairman, I have to disagree,with respect. The application was brought by the applicantson the basis that they did commit an act, that 10 people did die,they are not disputing that. All they are saying is that inrespect of their applications they do not know who the victimsare and... JUDGE NGOEPE:: Have we given the notice to the correctpeople in terms of that Section of the Act? MR DU PLESSIS:: Well Mr Chairman obviously in the lightof what was raised now, it might be possible that some of thesepeople are not the people involved. The point... MR DU PLESSIS:: Or perhaps all of them. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Maybe we have given the notice to the wrongpeople altogether? MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I have pointed out this aswell, and that is that the obligation in respect of Section 19does not rest on the applicants. JUDGE NGOEPE:: But you can't eat your cake and still haveit. You must decide whether you are accepting that these arethe victims or possibly these could be the victims and then weproceed with the matter on that basis. If you don't, then youmust concede that possibly we have given the notice to the wrongpeople. You can't have it both ways. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman I've raised this point previouslyand the compliance with Section 19(4), as I understand it, cannotstand in the way of a decision in terms of Section 20. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Well you can't commence the hearing withoutcomplying with it, don't jump the first step and go to the lastone. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes that might be so Mr Chairman, butthis was not raised at the beginning of the evidence. JUDGE NGOEPE:: Well you seem to be raising it now. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman, with respect, nobody hastold us how the victims were identified. Nobody has come tous and has said to us on what basis these victims were identified,it only became clear throughout the proceedings. MR DE JAGER:: But Mr Du Plessis you have applied for amnestywith regard to person "X", we cannot give amnesty withregard to a certain person if it is not the person for whom itwas applied. We cannot give you amnesty with regard to a certainperson if we do not know if those persons were activists, whothey were or generally there are 10 persons who died, we cannotidentify them. How can we, with enough certainty as requiredby the Act, determine that? JUDGE WILSON:: ...in respect of the murder of the 10 peoplewho occupied this Kombi whose bodies were found in it and on whominquests were held, they are specific people but you cannot identifythem. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, yes we cannot identify them. JUDGE WILSON:: You cannot put names to them but you canidentify the people in respect of whom you are asking for amnesty. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes. Mr Chairman if this is a problemthen I can foresee various difficult problems for people in theposition of the applicants. If, for instance, they ask amnestyonly pertaining to these 10 and the Attorney-General for somereason or another, after the cut-off date of the amnesty period,determines and finds that two of these people were wrongly identifiedand there were another two people, then the applicants would have been prejudiced and theycannot ask amnesty in respect of those other two that have beenidentified. So that is why the applicants say Mr Chairman theonly obligation on the applicants is to apply for amnesty in respectof that which they know, and as I understand criminal law, theycould have been prosecuted for murder and other acts, but let'stake murder, specifically pertaining to the people who were inthe Kombi and in respect of which an inquest has been held. That is how I understand it Mr Chairman. JUDGE NGOEPE:: But if the admission is made for the purposeof these proceedings and the proceedings come to a close, I don'tsee the sort of problem that you seem to be foreseeing with regardas to whether or not wrong people were, amnesty was granted inrespect of certain people. Those admissions would have beenmade for the purpose of the proceedings and these proceedingswould have been closed. I have profound difficulties with anysuggestion, with any argument that you could in the one breathargue that well I'm not prepared to accept that these are thevictims but in the same breath, want us to tell ourselves thatwe have given the notice to the correct people. I can't reconcilethese two. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman with the utmost respect, Idon't know what is expected of the applicants in this regard. Clearly I cannot be requested to make an admission of somethingthat we are not sure of and that we don't have evidence aboutand bind my clients in a different forum later in respect of suchan admission. The only possibility that I can see is that onecan go from the viewpoint that for purposes of these proceedingsand for purposes of amnesty, reserving all the rights of the applicants and without waiving any rights whatsoever, that itis accepted that she represents the victims as far as these proceedingsgo. I am even hesitant to make that admission Mr Chairman. JUDGE NGOEPE:: There are many possibilities. One ofthe possibilities is that if that becomes an issue there shouldbe further investigation of the matter to determine whether thesewere the correct victims. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes, Mr Chairman as I understand the proceedingsit is possible, as I understand it, after a hearing to do that. If I understand it correctly it might be possible to do thatin the best way possible. The problem that you've raised howeveris let's say for argument's sake, that it is totally impossibleto make any further link whatsoever between the deceased and theapplicants, surely Mr Chairman that cannot stand in the way ofthe applicants' amnesty application? CHAIRMAN:: Very well, we may have to apply our minds tothis as a substantive issue at some stage. I think that forthe present I would like this matter to be taken as far as itcan, purely evidentially so let Mr Currin be afforded the opportunityof placing before us the maximum information he's in a positionto do and maybe we might see some light at the end of the tunnelafter that. Mr Currin you asked for a short adjournment? MR CURRIN:: Could we have a short adjournment? Thankyou sir. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION MR CURRIN:: Thank you Mr Chairman. We are having difficultyin identifying with absolute certainty who was in that Kombi in Nietverdiend on that particular day. It transpiresthat although we are able to say with a fair amount of certaintythat at least nine of the 10 names we submitted, disappeared fromhome on 26 June, we are unable to say with certainty that allof them were in the Kombi on 27 June because in fact there seemsto be a connection between this group and the Kwandabele 9. It would seem that at least two of the names who disappeared onthe 26th were probably part of the Kwandabele 9 and were killedin Kwandabele and not in this vehicle. We've had discussionsamongst ourselves, the various legal representatives as well asthe office of the Attorney-General, and it seems that with a fairamount of work during the course of the next month clarificationshould be forthcoming by the end of November. So we are unableat this stage to say categorically who was in the Kombi on 27June, 1986. CHAIRMAN:: What do you propose? MR CURRIN:: It would seem that it is important to tryand establish, at least on the balance of probabilities, who wasin the Kombi on that particular night and we would propose thatthe matter stand down pending further investigation by the Attorney-General'sinvestigators. They are at this moment in time busy trying toclarify the issue and come up with a degree of certainty as towhich were the individuals that were killed in Kwandabele andwhich are the individuals who were killed in Nietverdiend. Wewould suggest that the matter should stand down. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman we have no objection if whateverMr Currin does and ascertains helps this Committee to bring outthe truth, we support it fullheartedly. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you. Mr Mpshe is there anything youwish to add? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman I do not want to reopen what wasdone before the adjournment Mr Chairman, but I've got a bit ofdifficulty in Mr Du Plessis' submission. During the break Ihad the opportunity of asking him what the effect of the exactidentity of the deceased would have on his application and ifI remember well, his response was that their main concern is theage of the people who died in the Kombi in that if the age isnot fully determined it may have adverse effects on the application. I want him to confirm that before I continue. CHAIRMAN:: He has made that point in another way, I understandthat. The question now is in order to identify the personalities,not of the age so much but as far as the identity of the individualsinvolved, there seems to be no clarity in that. Judge Ngcobealso felt concerned at this stage whether we have informed theright people, the right relatives, if we haven't satisfied ourselvesas to who the victims were. In that regard is there anythingyou wish to say? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman pardon me for this, because itworries me I have to talk about it Mr Chairman, on the questionof the age the birth certificates are available to determine theage... JUDGE WILSON:: We don't know if those are the people sowhat value are the birth certificates Mr Mpshe? MR MPSHE:: Mr Chairman, the impression that one is boundto get by this type of submission is that there is a dispute fromthe applicants that the people who died in the Kombi are not thepeople that we killed. I don't know how does this affect the application Mr Chairman? Are we to determineexactly who died and if we are to do that is it said that it isdisputed that the 10 people who died are not the 10 people whowere killed by the applicants? I'm a bit worried by the... MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman perhaps I can just make ourview clear. Our view is that, and I have stated that beforethis Committee publicly, our view is that it is of importanceto determine the ages of these people. It is also importantfor purposes of the Committee when giving amnesty, if the Committeeshould decide to give amnesty, that amnesty should be given inrespect of the death of certain individuals as far as that canbe ascertained. We do not have a problem with that. If theenquiry should place beyond doubt who the people in the Kombiwere, we don't have a problem because then we can be granted amnestyin respect of that. If the result is that the people cannotbe identified, we will apply for amnesty in respect of the deathof the unknown person who were in the Kombi. We say that thereshould be no reason whatsoever to preclude any further investigationsto find out the truth. CHAIRMAN:: Whatever the position, it seems that it cannotbe resolved at this stage Mr Mpshe, and we are then obliged toadjourn this hearing to another day. Members of my Committeehave had consultation in this regard as to when we should resumethe hearing and while it is desirable to conclude a matter assoon as possible and without unnecessary delay, it's in the interestof all parties concerned that this matter should be finalisedas soon as possible. The Committee is not in a position to dealwith this matter any earlier than the last week of February and will continue then, once it starts on 24 February, will continueuntil it is concluded, no matter how long it takes. I thereforenow formally postpone the hearing of this matter to 24 February1997 at possibly this venue. If there is going to be a changein venue I have no doubt we will all be duly notified. I trustthat in the meanwhile this matter and any other matter which maybe capable of being clarified in the intervening period, the Committeewill appreciate that. MR DU PLESSIS:: Mr Chairman may I perhaps request fromthe Committee one thing? My clients, especially Mr Van Vuuren,in the incident of Make Makupe and Sifola, have been approachedby the media and there was a request from the victims' familiesas well that he indicate the specific place where the act tookplace. We are a bit concerned that it might be of evidentiaryvalue later on if it's not regarded as part of this Committee'sproceedings...(end of side 2)... MR DU PLESSIS:: ...part of the proceedings of this Committee. CHAIRMAN:: I think that my brother Judge Wilson made itclear to me at least that we do require specific information inregard to where this incident occurred and with sufficient clarityalso as to where the interrogation took place. It would includea pointing out by Van Vuuren or anybody else. MR DU PLESSIS:: Yes thank you Mr Chairman I just wanton record that that's part of the proceedings, thank you verymuch. MR CURRIN:: Mr Chairman we would just like clarificationon one issue. During the course of these proceedings a number ofpeople have been implicated through the ranks all the way up tothe State President, to the State Security Council. We wouldobviously not want a situation to arise when we recommence inFebruary where people who have been implicated haven't been dulynotified in advance, and what we would just like to know is, isit our responsibility as representatives of the victims, to takethe initiative by approaching the Committee in regard to peoplehigher up who we would like to be here in the context of the questionof instructions and acting with authority, or is that somethingthat the Committee will automatically do in relation to thosewho have been implicated? What are our responsibilities? CHAIRMAN:: Mr Currin, your responsibilities are to bringforth before this Committee all evidence which you consider tobe of relevance to this application and if there are witnessesthat you propose calling then you must do so. CHAIRMAN:: I place no restraint on your in that regard. In the meanwhile people whose names have been mentioned duringthe course of these proceedings and who have not received noticeor who have not received adequate notice about that fact, I'veno doubt steps are already afoot to put that right. PerhapsMr Mpshe will seek assistance to see that that is done timeously. MR CURRIN:: That would obviously include members of theState Security Council? CHAIRMAN:: I'm talking about names that have been mentioned,I'm not talking about any particular name, I'm talking about peoplewhose names have been mentioned in JUDGE WILSON:: Could I add to that, Mr Currin if you aregoing to call witnesses whom you know are going to name persons,it would be appreciated if you could inform Mr Mpshe timeouslyso he can then take the necessary steps to notify those peoplethat they are going to be named because he obviously cannot anticipatewhat your witnesses are going to say. If you know that namesare going to be mentioned, if you inform Mr Mpshe he will takethe necessary steps. MR CURRIN:: We will do that Sir, thank you. DISCUSSION BY MR MPSHE - NO MICROPHONE MR MPSHE:: ...indicate what they want me to do, whetherto subpoena them or just to inform them that they are being implicated. Thank you Mr Chairman that is all. CHAIRMAN:: Very well, this meeting comes to an end forthe time being. I adjourn these proceedings until 24 February,1997. |
